Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
147871939
label
Climate Change Other Bioenergy [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
147871939
contentType
document
title
Climate Change Other Bioenergy [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Environmental Initiatives (Clinton Administration)
Roger Ballentine's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
147871939
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-132015705-20171093F-008-005-2019
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4164a1b4ac094bf9
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2017-1093-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Office of Environmental Initiatives
Series/Staff Member:
Roger Ballentine
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
19510
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Climate Change Other Bioenergy [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
62
1
1
1
WHITE HOUSE
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES
FILES OF ROGER BALLENTINE,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
(prepared by Angie Mizeur)
Box 3 of 9
Submitted 12/22/2000
CLIMATE CHANGE (CONT)
International (cont)
Environmental Security
India (visit, general)
National Security
Protocol/UNFCCC/Amendments Texts
Russia
Trade/Int'l Coop.
Trading
Other/General
Agriculture/Sinks/Land Use
Appliance Standards
Bioenergy
CAFÉ/Clean Cars/Fuels
ENCLOSURES FILED OVERSIZE
ATTACHMENTS 19510
NARA # 16714
Comparison of Executive Order 13134 and the Biomass Research & Development
Act of 2000
On June 20th, the President signed the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
244), Title III is the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000.
The scope of the E.O. and Act are similar though the E.O. is broader. The Act defines
Biobased industrial products as including "fuels, chemicals, building materials, electric
power or heat from biomass". The Act does not specifically remove old growth timber
from the biomass definition.
The E.O. spans R&D to include commercialization and market development while the
Act includes pre-commercialization activities, demos (test beds) and field work. The Act
does not address market pull or federal purchases.
The Act authorizes $49 million in funding within the Department of Agriculture to carry
out research under the Biomass R&D Initiative through competitively awarded grants,
contracts and financial assistance. The technical areas, players, selection considerations,
and peer review by independent technical and scientific boards are spelled out.
The Act designates that the Points of Contact from DOE and USDA will cooperate in the
coordination of the R&D programs, arrange for site specific and interlaboratory
agreements, and jointly administer the Initiative.
The Act established a Biomass Research and Development Board which supersedes the
Interagency Council established under the E.O. The Board will be co-chaired by the
Department of Energy and Agriculture Points of Contact. Membership is to include DOI,
EPA, NSF, and OSTP representatives of similar rank, appointed by heads of each agency.
If needed, the co-chairs may add more agency members. The current action on this item
has included a redraft the Charter of the Interagency Council, and re-designation of the
co-chairs and members of the Interagency Council to the new Biomass R&D Board. The
Biomass R&D Board is to meet quarterly; the next meeting is tentatively scheduled for
the week of September 11th and will be hosted by EPA.
The Act establishes a Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory
Committee which supersedes the Advisory Committee on Biobased Products and
Bioenergy established under the E.O. The Committee is to advise the Board on the
technical focus and direction of requests for proposals issued, and evaluate and perform
strategic planning on program activities related to the initiative. Members are to be
jointly designated by the DOE and USDA, the requirements and responsibilities were
slightly altered from the E.O., and members will be appointed for 3 years except that
initially 1/3 will be one -year terms, and 1/3 2 -year terms. Currently the DOE and
USDA have agreed on a list of 25 names and the list is awaiting final approval; 20 of
those names were the original list approved for the E.O. Advisory Group. The Biomass
R&D Technical Advisory Committee is to meet quarterly.
Reporting requirements under the E.O. include the preparation of an Annual Strategic
Plan by the Council, the first Strategic Plan is in the final stages of preparation. The Act
requires a Report to Congress 180 days after enactment, followed by annual reports to
Congress; reports should describe the status of R&D in Federal and private sector, and
establish criteria for evaluating economic, energy and environmental impacts.
The Act does not mention the Biobased Products and Bioenergy Coordination Office,
which was established under the E.O.; nor are the DOE and USDA working groups
mentioned. However, the Act does authorize that 4% of the authorized funds may be
used for administration.
Krista
10/4/00
Joe Jobe
Bio Diesel
Europe sing biodiesel widely, from
B5 to B100
- tax incentives and subsidies
much higher.
-Plent of Greess capacity (J) domestic "oleo"
chemical industy.
- -"yellowigrese" 15 recieled soybear oil That
is already traded Bio diesel from
biodirse. this 13 different than vizing
should help deal 15/mil/103 EPA law
sulphe- diesel rele!
An Overview of
Biodiesel
and
Petroleum Diesel
Life Cycles
SOYBEAN POWERED
This Bus Runs On Soybon Bu-Dev
104815
A Joint Study Sponsored by:
U.S. Department of Agriculture and
U.S. Department of Energy
May 1998
NOTICE
NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial
product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
Printed in the United States of America
Available to DOE and DOE contractors from:
Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Prices available by calling (423) 576-8401
Available to the public from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
A limited supply is also available from Sally Evans
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, CO 80125
(303) 275-4363
NREL/TP-580-24772
An Overview of Biodiesel and
Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
John Sheehan
Vince Camobreco
James Duffield
Michael Graboski
Housein Shapouri
NREL
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
Operated by Midwest Research Institute
Under Contract No. DE-AC02-83CH10093
Prepared under Task No. BF886002
May 1998
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
i
NREL/TP-580-24772
Acknowledgments
Life cycle studies require thoughtfulness, hard work, and patience. We have been fortunate to have all
these. The core team of workers comes from a variety of organizations, and their ability to collaborate on
such a project is a tribute to their professionalism and to the dedication of these organizations.
From the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
John Sheehan initiated and organized this effort, and provided detailed process modeling for the
soybean crushing and biodiesel production technologies.
K. Shaine Tyson, NREL project manager for DOE's Biodiesel Program, provided overview and
management for the work and shared her insights based on her experience conducting a life cycle
study for ethanol.
From the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Energy
Jim Duffield coordinated this study for USDA, and was the lead contributor to the soybean
agriculture portion of the model.
Housein Shapouri, a coauthor of the soybean agriculture section, provided invaluable support in
collecting and analyzing USDA's data on soybean farm practices.
From Ecobalance, Inc., and the Colorado Institute for Fuels and High Altitude Engine
Research (CIFER) at the Colorado School of Mines
Ecobalance, Inc.
Vince Camobreco coordinated this study for Ecobalance with support from DOE, and tirelessly led
the effort to construct the life cycle models for petroleum diesel and biodiesel using Ecobalance's
invaluable software tools designed for this type of work. Remi Coulon and Jacques Besnainou
provided technical oversight of the model development, and provided invaluable insight on life cycle
modeling.
CIFER
Mike Graboski, with the support of USDA's Office of Energy, took the lead in collecting and
analyzing all the available data on biodiesel and petroleum diesel performance in bus engines.
We would be remiss if we did not recognize the hours of volunteer time put in by our stakeholders and
peer reviewers. Their efforts lend credibility to this work. Finally, we want to thank the leaders at DOE
and USDA for their support and patience during this long and trying effort. In particular, we would like to
thank
Roger Conway, USDA Office of Energy
John Ferrell and Mike Voorhies, DOE Office of Fuels Development
This overview is extracted from a detailed, comprehensive report entitled Life Cycle Inventories of
Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus., NREL/SR-580-24089 UC Category 1503,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. That report contains the detail engineering
analysis, assumptions, and other technical material that supports this overview. For a copy of that report,
contact the same addresses provided on the previous page.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
ii
NREL/TP-580-24772
1
Executive Summary
What is biodiesel?
Biodiesel is a renewable diesel fuel substitute that can be made by chemically combining any natural oil
or fat with an alcohol such as methanol or ethanol. Methanol has been the most commonly used alcohol in
the commercial production of biodiesel. In Europe, biodiesel is widely available in both its neat form
(100% biodiesel, also known as B100) and in blends with petroleum diesel. Most European biodiesel is
made from rapeseed oil (a cousin of canola oil). In the United States, initial interest in producing and
using biodiesel has focused on the use of soybean oil as the primary feedstock, mainly because this
country is the world's largest producer of soybean oil.
Why biodiesel?
Proponents of biodiesel as a substitute for diesel fuel (neat or in blends) point to its advantages:
It can reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum
Petroleum imports are at record levels in the United States, and will continue to rise as domestic
oil supplies shrink. Our transportation sector, with its great demand for gasoline and diesel fuel,
relies almost exclusively on petroleum for energy. Biodiesel can be produced domestically from
agricultural oils and from waste fats and oils. Because it can be used directly in diesel engines,
biodiesel offers the immediate potential to reduce our demand for petroleum.
It can leverage limited supplies of fossil fuels
Regardless of whose perspective we choose to believe on the future of coal, oil, and natural gas,
their supply is, ultimately, limited. Biodiesel can help us leverage our use of these fuels.
It can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions
The burning of fossil fuels during the past century has dramatically increased the levels of carbon
dioxide (CO₂) and other "greenhouse gases" that trap heat in our atmosphere. Their implications
are hotly debated, but the levels of these gases have unquestionably risen at unprecedented rates
in the context of geological time¹. To the extent that biodiesel is truly renewable, it could help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.
It can help reduce air pollution and related public health risks
One of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) primary charges is to reduce public
health risks associated with environmental pollution. Biodiesel can play a role in reducing
emissions of many air pollutants, especially those targeted by EPA in urban areas. These include
particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), sulfur oxides (SOx),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), and air toxics.
¹Revelle published the groundbreaking work on atmospheric CO₂ buildup during the International Geophysical Year
of 1957, in which he clearly stated the problem of greenhouse gases. He wrote: "Human beings are carrying out a
large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be produced in the future.
Within a few centuries, we are returning to the atmosphere and the oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in
sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years." Revelle, R.; Suess, H. Tellus 9(11):18-21, 1957.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
iii
NREL/TP-580-24772
It can benefit our domestic economy.
Spending on foreign imports of petroleum takes dollars away from our economy. Biodiesel can
help us shift this spending to domestically produced energy, and offers new energy-related
markets to farmers.
One gallon of biodiesel provides the same benefits used neat (100%) or
used in blends, such as B20 (20% biodiesel with 80% diesel fuel)
Because the tailpipe emissions of biodiesel vary linearly with the blend level, the benefit of any
blend level of biodiesel can be estimated by using the following formula: percent biodiesel
multiplied by biodiesel life cycle inventory plus percent diesel fuel multiplied by diesel fuel life
cycle inventory.
Why a life cycle analysis?
Life cycle analyses look at the whole picture of how a fuel is made, from "cradle to grave." The life
cycles begin with the extraction of all raw materials to make petroleum diesel and biodiesel, and end with
using the fuels in an urban bus. Examining global issues, such as CO₂ emissions, requires a
comprehensive life cycle analysis. Understanding the benefits of biodiesel requires us to compare its life
cycle emissions to those of petroleum diesel. This study examines biodiesel energy's balance, its effect on
greenhouse gas emissions, and its effects on the generation of air, water, and solid waste pollutants for
every operation needed to made biodiesel and diesel fuel. We made no attempt to quantify its domestic
economic benefits.
This study provides a life cycle inventory of
environmental and energy flows to and from the
environment for both petroleum diesel and
biodiesel, as well as for blends of biodiesel with
petroleum diesel.
Scope
Life cycle analysis is a complex science. One characteristic of the process is that you have to choose very
specific technologies and assumptions to represent very complex and diverse industries and systems. So
life cycles can oversimplify "reality." Also, you cannot model a system or process without data. So the
availability of published data often determines which technologies and assumptions are modeled in a life
cycle analysis. For example, a great deal of information is available from bus engine tests and bus
demonstrations of soybean-derived biodiesel, so we chose to model soybean oil production and
conversion to biodiesel, and based the end use on bus applications.
Findings
Life cycle analyses all have similar limitations. Incomplete data are the rule rather than the exception. We
have varying degrees of confidence in the results, but the most reliable conclusions are for overall energy
balance and CO₂ emissions. For these two measures, our data are the most complete. More importantly,
our sensitivity studies show that the estimates of CO₂ emissions and energy requirements are very robust:
they show little change in response to changes in key assumptions.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
iv
NREL/TP-580-24772
Reductions in petroleum and fossil energy consumption
Biodiesel offers tremendous potential as one component of a strategy for reducing petroleum oil
dependence and minimizing fossil fuel consumption.
The benefit of using biodiesel is proportionate to
the blend level of biodiesel used. Substituting
B100 for petroleum diesel in buses reduces the life
cycle consumption of petroleum by 95%. A 20%
blend of biodiesel and petroleum diesel (B20)
causes the life cycle consumption of petroleum to
drop 19%.
Biodiesel and petroleum diesel production processes are almost equally efficient at converting raw energy
resources (in this case, petroleum or soybean oil) into fuels. Biodiesel's advantage is that its largest raw
resource (soy oil) is renewable. So biodiesel requires less fossil energy (only 0.31 units) to make a 1 unit
of fuel.
Biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for
every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life
cycle. The production of B20 yields 0.98 units of
fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy
consumed.
By contrast, society uses 1.2 units of fossil resources to produce 1 unit of petroleum diesel. Such
measures confirm the "renewable" nature of biodiesel.
Reductions in CO2 emissions
Because biodiesel production requires such small amounts of fossil fuel, its CO₂ life cycle emissions are,
not surprisingly, much lower than those of petroleum diesel. Displacing petroleum diesel with biodiesel in
urban buses is an extremely effective strategy for reducing CO₂ emissions.
Biodiesel reduces net CO₂ emissions by 78.45%
compared to petroleum diesel. For B20, CO2
emissions from urban buses drop 15.66%.
Changes in air pollutant emissions
The effect of biodiesel on air quality is complex and requires an understanding of the chemical
interactions of air pollutants. To begin such an analysis, you need to know the amounts and type of air
pollutants each fuel releases into the environment. Biodiesel, as it is available today, substantially reduces
some air pollutants; it leads to increases in others.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
V
NREL/TP-580-24772
Using B100 in urban buses substantially reduces
life cycle emissions of total particulate matter
(32%), co (35%), and SOx (8%), relative to
petroleum diesel's life cycle.
Biodiesel reduces particulate, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide emissions compared to diesel fuel.
The EPA targets these three emissions because they pose public health risks, especially in urban areas
where they can affect more people. Because transportation emissions contribute significantly to urban
concentrations of these pollutants, reducing tailpipe emissions is a powerful tool for improving air
quality. Using biodiesel in buses operating in urban areas significantly reduces these pollutants.
Tailpipe emissions of particulates smaller than 10
microns are 68% lower for buses that run on
biodiesel (compared to petroleum diesel). Tailpipe
co emissions are 46% lower. Biodiesel completely
eliminates tailpipe SOx emissions.
The reductions in air emissions reported here are proportional to the amount of biodiesel in the fuel. Thus,
for B20, users can expect to see 20% of the reductions reported for B100.
NOₓ is one of three pollutants implicated in the formation of ground-level ozone and smog in urban areas
(NOx, CO, and HCs). Biodiesel increases tailpipe NOₓ emissions, and these emission sources dominate its
life cycle NOₓ emission levels.
The use of B100 in urban buses increases NOₓ life
cycle emissions by 13.35%. Blending biodiesel
with petroleum proportionately lowers NOx
emissions. B20 exhibits a 2.67% increase in life
NOx cycle emissions. Most of this increase is
directly attributable to increases in NOx tailpipe
emissions. B100, for example, increases NOx
tailpipe levels by 8.89%.
Our results are based on the performance of current fuel and engine technologies. Our study points out the
need for research on improving engine design and biodiesel fuel formulation to address this problem.
The biodiesel life cycle also produces more hydrocarbon (HC) emissions compared to the diesel fuel life
cycle. Most of the biodiesel life cycle emissions are produced during farming and soybean processing
operations. Tailpipe HC emissions are actually lower for biodiesel than for diesel fuel.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
vi
NREL/TP-580-24772
Total life cycle emissions of HCs are 35% higher
for B100 than for petroleum diesel. However, HC
emissions at the bus's tailpipe are 37% lower.
These results point out opportunities for improving the life cycle of biodiesel. Future agricultural research
should focus on ways of reducing HC releases from today's agricultural systems.
Next Steps
We designed this study to identify and quantify the advantages of biodiesel as a substitute for petroleum
diesel. These advantages are substantial, especially in the areas of energy security and control of
greenhouse gases. We have also identified weaknesses or areas of concern for biodiesel-such as its
emissions of NO, and HCs. We see these as opportunities for further research to resolve these concerns.
We hope our findings will be used to focus research on these critical issues.
Much can be done to build on and improve the work we have done here. Next steps for this work include:
Use the life cycle inventory to assess the
relative effects of petroleum diesel and
biodiesel on our environment and on public
health risks to gain an understanding of the
benefits associated with biodiesel.
Quantify the costs and benefits of biodiesel.
Assess the economic impact of biodiesel as an
alternative fuel (e.g., its effects on jobs and the
trade deficit).
Evaluate other feedstock sources.
Incorporate new health effects data on HC
emissions from biodiesel and petroleum diesel.
Develop regional life cycle models for biodiesel
use.
Evaluate performance of newer diesel engines
and new fuel production technologies.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
vii
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary
iii
1
Introduction
1
1.1 Stakeholder Involvement
1
2
Scope
3
2.1.1
Purposes
3
2.1.2
What Is "Biodiesel?"
3
2.1.3
What Is "Petroleum Diesel?"
3
2.1.4
Defining the Product Application
3
2.1.5
What Is Included in the Life Cycle Systems?
4
2.1.6
What Are the Geographic Boundaries?
4
2.1.7
What Is the Time Frame?
5
2.1.8
Basis for Comparing the Life Cycles
5
3
Key Assumptions
6
4
Findings
7
4.1 Results of the Base-Case Study
8
4.1.1
Life Cycle Energy Balance
8
4.1.1.1
Types of Life Cycle Energy Inputs
8
4.1.1.2
Defining Energy Efficiency
9
4.1.1.3
Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle Energy Consumption
10
4.1.1.4
Biodiesel Life Cycle Energy Demand
13
4.1.1.5
Effect of Biodiesel on Life Cycle Energy Demands
13
4.1.2
CO₂ Emissions
16
4.1.2.1
Accounting for Biomass-Derived Carbon
16
4.1.2.2
Comparison of CO₂ Emissions for Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel
18
4.1.3
Primary Resource Consumption for Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel
19
4.1.4
Life Cycle Emissions of Regulated and Nonregulated Air Pollutants
20
4.1.4.1
Comparison of Life Cycle Air Emissions for Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel
22
4.1.5
Life Cycle Emissions of Water Effluents
24
4.1.6
Comparison of Solid Waste Life Cycle Flows
25
4.2 Sensitivity Studies
25
4.2.1
The Effect of Enhanced Location for Biodiesel Production and Use
25
4.2.2
The Effect of Energy Requirements for Conversion of Soybean Oil to Biodiesel
28
5
Conclusions
31
5.1 Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Flows
31
5.2 Next Steps
32
6
Life Cycle Data Tables
33
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
viii
NREL/TP-580-24772
Tables
Table 1: Geographic Scope of the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
5
Table 2: Geographic Scope of the Biodiesel Life Cycle
5
Table 3: Primary Energy Requirements for the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
10
Table 4: Fossil Energy Requirements for the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
12
Table 5: Primary Energy Requirements for Biodiesel Life Cycle
14
Table 6: Fossil Energy Requirements for the Biodiesel Life Cycle
15
Table 7: Tailpipe Contribution to Total Life Cycle CO₂ for Petroleum Diesel and Biodiesel (g CO₂/bhp-
h)
18
Table 8: Effect of Biodiesel on Tailpipe Emissions (g/bhp-h)
24
Table 9: Model Parameters for the Chicago Area Biodiesel Scenario
26
Table 10: Range of Energy Inputs for Soybean Oil Conversion Tested in LCI Model
28
Table 11: Primary Energy Demand for the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle Inventory
34
Table 12: Fossil Energy Requirements for the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
34
Table 13: Primary Energy Requirements for Biodiesel Life Cycle
35
Table 14: Fossil Energy Requirements for the Biodiesel Life Cycle
35
Table 15: Biomass Carbon Balance for Biodiesel Life Cycle (g/bhp-h)
36
Table 16: LCI Inventory of Raw Material Consumption for Petroleum Diesel (kg/bhp-h)
37
Table 17: Life Cycle Consumption of Primary Resources for Biodiesel
37
Table 18: LCI of Air Emissions for Petroleum Diesel (g/bhp-h)
38
Table 19: LCI Air Emissions for Biodiesel (g/bhp-h)
39
Table 20: Air Emissions for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100 (g/bhp-h)
40
Table 21: Relative Change in Life Cycle Air Emissions for Fuels Containing 20% and 100% Biodiesel 41
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
ix
NREL/TP-580-24772
Figures
Figure 1: Ranking of Primary Energy Demand for the Stages of Petroleum Diesel
11
Figure 2: Process Energy Demand for Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
11
Figure 3: Ranking of Fossil Energy Demand for Stages of the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
12
Figure 4: Ranking of Primary Energy Demand for Stages of the Biodiesel Life Cycle
14
Figure 5: Process Energy Requirements for Biodiesel Life Cycle
15
Figure 6: Fossil Energy Requirements versus Fuel Product Energy for the Biodiesel Life Cycle
16
Figure 7: Biomass Carbon Balance for Biodiesel Life Cycle (g carbon/bhp-h)
17
Figure 8: Comparison of Net CO₂ Life Cycle Emissions for Petroleum Diesel and Biodiesel Blends
18
Figure 9: Effect of Biodiesel Blend Level on CO₂ Emissions
19
Figure 10: Petroleum Consumption for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
20
Figure 11: Coal and Natural Gas Consumption for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
20
Figure 12: Water Use for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
21
Figure 13: Life Cycle Air Emissions for B100 and B20 Compared to Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle Air
Emissions
22
Figure 14: Comparison of Total Wastewater Flows for Petroleum Diesel and Biodiesel Life Cycles
24
Figure 15: Hazardous Waste Generation for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
25
Figure 16: Nonhazardous Waste Generation for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
26
Figure 17: The Effect of an Enhanced Location for Biodiesel on Life Cycle Consumption of Primary
Energy Resources
27
Figure 18 : Reductions in Life Cycle Air Emissions for the Chicago Area Biodiesel Scenario
27
Figure 19: Water and Solid Waste Emissions Reductions for the Chicago Area Biodiesel Scenario
28
Figure 20: The Effect of Conversion Energy Requirements on Primary Energy Resource Demands for
Biodiesel
29
Figure 21: The Effect of Soybean Oil Conversion Energy Demands on Air Emissions for Biodiesel
30
Figure 22: The Effect of Soybean Oil Conversion Energy Demands on Water and Solid Waste Emissions
for Biodiesel
30
Figure 23: Effect of Biodiesel Blend on Life Cycle Air Emissions of CH₄, SOx, HF, PM10, and CO
41
Figure 24: Effect of Biodiesel Blend Level on Air Emissions of NOx, NMHC and HCI
42
Figure 25: Primary Energy Balance for the Petroleum Diesel Fuel Life Cycle (with Mass Allocation)
43
Figure 26: Primary Energy Balance for Petroleum Diesel Fuel Life Cycle (No Mass Allocation)
44
Figure 27: Primary Energy Balance for Biodiesel Fuel Life Cycle (with Mass Allocation)
45
Figure 28: Primary Energy Balance for Biodiesel Fuel Life Cycle (No Mass Allocation)
46
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
X
NREL/TP-580-24772
1 Introduction
This report presents the findings from a study of the life cycle inventories (LCIs) for petroleum diesel and
biodiesel. An LCI comprehensively quantifies all the energy and environmental flows associated with a
product from "cradle to grave." It provides information on:
Raw materials extracted from the environment
Energy resources consumed
Air, water, and solid waste emissions generated.
By "cradle to grave," we mean all the steps from the first extraction of raw materials to the end use of the
fuel. Comparing the LCIs of two or more fuels provides insights to their relative strengths and
weaknesses. LCIs are also used to examine greenhouse gas emissions because these emissions can be
produced anywhere in a fuel's life cycle. LCIs include other environmental emissions as well, particularly
regulated air emissions such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM). These LCI data will be used by industry and government
decision makers considering biodiesel as an alternative fuel. This study is the product of a highly effective
partnership between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE). This partnership has brought together the agricultural and energy expertise needed to adequately
address an LCI of biodiesel.
1.1 Stakeholder Involvement
A good life cycle study uses every opportunity to obtain input from everyone who has a stake in the final
outcome. This is especially true for life cycle studies being conducted to support important government
policy decisions. Many early decisions made in setting the scope of the study (see section 2) can have a
profound effect on its outcome. All stakeholders must therefore have an opportunity to:
Discuss the key assumptions and options.
Provide input throughout the project to ensure that the best available data are used and interpreted
properly.
Provide their perspective on the results as they become available to help the researchers avoid
"tunnel vision."
The most important reason for stakeholder involvement is credibility. When studies are done in a
vacuum, they stand little chance of getting acceptance from the industries involved. In the end, LCI
results are only as good as the "buy-in" or level of credibility they engender.
We made stakeholder involvement a top priority. The following groups provided input:
Petroleum Industry
Oilseed Processing Industry
Animal Renderers and Recyclers
Chemical Process Industry
Biodiesel Producers
Engine Manufacturers
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
1
NREL/TP-580-24772
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State and Local Governments
Environmental Public Interest Groups.
Stakeholders were given many opportunities to communicate with us in writing, by phone, and by e-mail,
as well as in our face-to-face meetings.
1. Before pen was put to paper, USDA and DOE brought together a consortium of stakeholders at a
meeting hosted by USDA in Washington, DC, to discuss the needs and goals of our study.
2. Based on input from this group, a preliminary scoping document was put together and distributed for
review.
3. A second face-to-face meeting with stakeholders was held to work out the details of the project scope.
4. Once the basic data were collected on all aspects of the petroleum diesel and biodiesel life cycles, the
stakeholders reconvened to review the data. Feedback from this meeting resulted in our updating data
sources and filling in gaps.
5. Finally, once results from the LCI model were available, we sought detailed comments from a
representative group of stakeholders (those willing to put in the time to study our results). They were
given a first draft of this report. Their comments have been carefully compiled. Wherever possible,
we made changes to the model and the report to reflect their concerns and criticisms. This document
is a product of that final review.
The quality of our results is much better for the input of these groups. We are indebted to those who
participated.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
2
NREL/TP-580-24772
2
Scope
2.1.1 Purposes
The purposes of this study were to (1) conduct an LCI to quantify and compare the comprehensive sets of
environmental flows (to and from the environment) associated with biodiesel and petroleum-based diesel,
over their life cycles; and (2) provide the information to answer the questions posed by policy makers:
2.1.2 What Is "Biodiesel?"
In its most general sense, "biodiesel" refers to any diesel fuel substitute derived from renewable biomass.
More specifically, biodiesel refers to a family of products made from vegetable oils or animal fats and
alcohol, such as methanol or ethanol, called alkyl esters of fatty acids. For these to be considered as viable
transportation fuels, they must meet stringent quality standards. One popular process for producing
biodiesel, modeled in this report, is "transesterification."
Biodiesel is made from a variety of natural oils, especially rapeseed oil (a close cousin of canola oil) and
soybean oil. Rapeseed oil dominates the growing biodiesel industry in Europe. In the United States,
biodiesel is made from soybean oil because more soybean oil is produced here than all other sources of
fats and oil combined. There are many other feedstock candidates, including recycled cooking oils,
animal fats, and other oilseed crops. We selected soybean oil because of the vast number of data about
this oil as a biodiesel feedstock.
We chose methanol for our model because it is the most widely used alcohol for biodiesel production, it is
easy to process, and is relatively low cost. Thus, our working definition of biodiesel is a diesel fuel
substitute made by transesterifying soybean oil with methanol. In industry parlance, it is called soy
methyl ester or methyl soyate.
2.1.3 What Is "Petroleum Diesel?"
We defined petroleum diesel as "on-highway" low-sulfur diesel made from crude oil. Recent regulations
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its enforcement of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments, set tougher restrictions for on-road versus off-road diesel. The "on-highway"
diesel must now meet limits for sulfur content that are an order of magnitude lower than previously
allowed (0.05 wt% versus 0.5% sulfur). We restrict our evaluation of petroleum diesel to this diesel².
2.1.4 Defining the Product Application
The fuels' end uses can greatly affect the life cycle flows. Potential markets for biodiesel cover a wide
range of applications, including most truck operations, stationary generation, mining equipment, marine
diesel engines, and bus fleets. We compare petroleum diesel and biodiesel in urban buses because many
2 In our analysis, low-sulfur diesel fuel is used in urban buses. This is not true for agricultural use of diesel fuel in
soybean production. Data for "off-highway" diesel-powered tractors characterize performance and emissions of
these engines. This diesel is not held to the same strict standard for sulfur content.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
3
NREL/TP-580-24772
end-use data are available. The U.S. biodiesel industry early on identified the urban bus market as a near-
term opportunity, and many data are available on the performance of diesel bus engines.
2.1.5 What Is Included in the Life Cycle Systems?
Major operations within the boundary of the petroleum diesel system include:
Extract crude oil from the ground
Transport crude oil to an oil refinery
Refine crude oil to diesel fuel
Transport diesel fuel to its point of use
Use the fuel in a diesel bus engine.
For the biodiesel system, major operations include:
Produce soybeans
Transport soybeans to a soy crushing facility
Recover soybean oil at the crusher
Transport soybean oil to a biodiesel manufacturing facility
Convert soybean oil to biodiesel
Transport biodiesel fuel to the point of use
Use the fuel in a diesel bus engine.
This is not a comprehensive list of what we modeled. These operations include detailed processes
described in detail in the comprehensive report, Life Cycle Inventories of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel
for Use in an Urban Bus. For example, crude oil extraction includes flows from operations such as
onshore and offshore drilling and natural gas separation. Onshore drilling is further characterized as either
conventional or advanced technology.
In addition to the energy and environmental flows in each step, we include energy and environmental
inputs from raw materials production. Generally, life cycle flows are characterized for all raw materials
from the point of extraction. For example, methanol use in the biodiesel manufacturing facility
contributes life cycle flows that go back to the extraction of natural gas. Likewise, we include life cycle
flows from intermediate energy sources such as electricity-back to the extraction of coal, oil, natural
gas, limestone, and other primary resources.
2.1.6 What Are the Geographic Boundaries?
The LCA is limited to the use of petroleum diesel and biodiesel in the United States; however, it includes
some steps that go beyond domestic boundaries. Petroleum diesel's life cycle, in particular, includes
foreign crude oil production because half the crude oil used in the United States is imported. Other
aspects of the geographic limits involve the choice of national versus regional or even site-specific
assessment. For domestic operations, we rely on national average data. For foreign operations, we rely on
industry average data. Electricity generation is modeled on a national basis. Table 1 and Table 2 present
specific information on the geographic scope of the analysis for each stage of the petroleum diesel and
biodiesel life cycles.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
4
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 1: Geographic Scope of the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
Life Cycle Stage
Geographic Scope
Crude Oil Extraction
International average based on the consumption of crude oil in the
United States
Crude Oil Transportation
International average transportation distances to the United States
Crude Oil Refining
U.S. national average
Diesel Fuel Transportation
U.S. national average
Diesel Fuel Use
U.S. national average based on urban bus use
Table 2: Geographic Scope of the Biodiesel Life Cycle
Life Cycle Stage
Geographic Scope
Soybean Agriculture
Average based on data from the 14 key soybean-producing states
Soybean Transportation
U.S. national average
Soybean Crushing
U.S. national average based on modeling of a generic U.S. crushing
facility
Soybean Oil Transport
U.S. national average
Soybean Oil Conversion
U.S. average based on modeling of a generic biodiesel facility
Biodiesel Transportation
U.S. national average
Biodiesel Fuel Use
U.S. national average based on urban bus use
2.1.7 What Is the Time Frame?
We were faced with two basic options: (1) model technology and markets as they are today; or (2) model
a futuristic scenario based on projected technology and markets. We chose to focus on the present, so we
consider production and end-use technologies now available for petroleum diesel and biodiesel: In doing
so, we ignore future advances in production efficiency, emission reduction, new technology, and other
changes that reasonable people anticipate. The benefit of basing the analysis on current technology and
markets it that the analysis is far more "grounded" and objective because it relies on documented data
rather than on projections. The results provide a baseline for considering future scenarios.
2.1.8 Basis for Comparing the Life Cycles
Common sense dictates that two fuels should be compared on the same basis. So the "service" that the
fuels provide, in our case the work that the bus engine provide, is the unit of comparison. For example,
for light-duty vehicles, like automobiles, the service provided by the fuel is that it propels the vehicle for
1 mile. For heavy-duty diesel engines, the common unit of "work" is a brake-horsepower hour (bhp-h).
Once this shared function is defined, a comparison of fuel life cycles for diesel engines characterizes all
life cycle flows per bhp-h of diesel bus service.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
5
NREL/TP-580-24772
3
Key Assumptions
Details of the assumptions and modeling steps of the life cycle are presented in the comprehensive report,
Life Cycle Inventories of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Used in an Urban Bus. However, there are two
assumptions worth noting here for a better appreciation of the LCIs shown in this report. One, national
average distances were used to describe the transportation distances for all feedstocks, intermediate
products, and fuels. We also tested the effect of this assumption in a sensitivity analysis to see what
impact this assumption has on the LCI results. Two, both fuels were assumed to be used in engines
calibrated to meet 1994 EPA regulations for diesel exhaust when operated on low-sulfur petroleum diesel.
Other assumptions that will help the reader understand the fuel cycles we modeled include:
Sources of crude oil, domestic and foreign, are split almost evenly.
Publicly available refinery data were used to model a "generic" refinery.
Engine emissions from petroleum diesel are taken from published 1994 engine certification data.
Biodiesel assumptions include:
Agriculture practices and yields are based on weighted averages for 14 soybean-producing states.
Emissions are based on actual engine data for biodiesel emissions that are then modeled as changes in
the oxygen content³ in the fuel.
Energy efficiencies of biodiesel-fueled engines are identical to those of petroleum diesel-fueled
engines⁴.
Biomass-derived carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the fuel emissions is recycled in soybean production.
Soybean crushing and soy oil esterification data were based on published data and engineering
models.
3 Diesel fuel contains no oxygen. The amount of oxygen is a measure of biodiesel content in the fuel. Also, percent
oxygen proves to be a good basis for predicting emissions.
4
This is substantiated with an analysis of engine performance data.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
6
NREL/TP-580-24772
4
Findings
LCI results are presented for 100% biodiesel (B100), a 20% blend of biodiesel with petroleum diesel
(B20), and petroleum diesel. These results include estimates of:
Overall energy requirements
CO₂ emissions
Other regulated and non-regulated air emissions. Regulated pollutants include carbon monoxide
(CO), particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), and
nitrogen oxides (NOx). Non-regulated air emissions include methane (CH₄), formaldehyde, benzene,
total hydrocarbons (THC), and total particulate matter (TPM).
Water emissions
Solid wastes.
These life cycle flows are presented for the base-case scenarios and for two sensitivity studies. The base
case describes petroleum diesel and biodiesel life cycle flows for "national average" scenarios.
We conducted sensitivity studies on the biodiesel life cycle to establish sensitivities associated with key
assumptions.
1. We felt it was important to understand the impact of location on biodiesel production. This allows us
to consider the benefits of the best agricultural productivity available in the United States and the
shortest distances for transporting fuel and materials. It also sets an upper bound on biodiesel benefits
from the perspective of current agricultural practices and transportation logistics.
2. We identified the conversion of soybean oil to biodiesel as an aspect of the life cycle that has
significant impact on energy use and emissions and that has a broad range of efficiencies, depending
on the commercial technology used.
Our base-case estimate of the energy requirements for soy oil conversion is based on a preliminary
engineering design that was loosely based on data from a transesterification plant in Kansas City,
Missouri. Our energy budget proved to be much lower than that reported for this facility. A literature
review of recent technology revealed that our design estimate is at the high end of the range of recently
published literature values. To deal with this disparity, we decided to look at the range of reported energy
budgets as a sensitivity study.
Changes in engine and processing technologies may also create avenues for improving biodiesel on a life
cycle basis. We opted to forego this area in our sensitivity analysis because of limited data. Thus, we
present the results of two sensitivity studies:
We compared the base case for B100 with the LCI for an optimal biodiesel location (Chicago), based
on an evaluation of regions with the most efficient soybean production, local concentration of
soybean producers, and large end-use markets for urban buses.
We compared results for a range of high and low energy demands for soybean conversion to biodiesel
to determine the impact of this biodiesel life cycle stage on overall emissions and energy flows. We
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
7
NREL/TP-580-24772
based low and high values for energy consumption on a literature survey of the most recent,
commercially available, technologies.
4.1 Results of the Base-Case Study
The LCI results allow a side-by-side comparison of biodiesel and petroleum diesel fuels. Both LCIs
reflect generic "national average" models. The only exception is soybean agriculture data, which are
provided for each of the 14 key soybean-producing states. These were used because they provided a level
of detail that was not available at a national level.
In most cases, biodiesel is interchangeable with petroleum diesel without engine modifications. However,
one key issue for biodiesel is the effect of regional climate on its performance. Its cold flow properties
may limit its use in certain parts of the country during the winter. Researchers are evaluating ways to
mitigate biodiesel's cold flow properties, but no clear solution is at hand. Low-sulfur #2 diesel fuel has
similar limitations that are being addressed with the use of additives and by blending with #1 diesel fuel.
The LCI results that are covered in the following sections include (1) life cycle energy balances, (2) CO₂
cycles for each life cycle, (3) major air pollutants for each life cycle, and (4) the results of both sensitivity
analyses.
4.1.1 Life Cycle Energy Balance
LCIs provide an opportunity to quantify the total energy demands and the overall energy efficiencies of
processes and products. We need to understand the overall energy requirements of biodiesel to be able to
understand the extent to which biodiesel made from soybean oil is renewable. The more fossil energy
required to make a fuel, the less this fuel is renewable. Thus, the renewable nature of a fuel can vary
across the spectrum of "completely renewable" (no fossil energy input) to nonrenewable (fossil energy
inputs as much or more than the energy output of the fuel)³. Energy efficiency estimates help us
determine how much additional energy must be expended to convert the energy available in raw materials
used in the fuel's life cycle to a useful transportation fuel. The following sections describe these basic
concepts in more detail, as well as the results of our analysis of the life cycle energy balances for
biodiesel and petroleum diesel.
4.1.1.1 Types of Life Cycle Energy Inputs
We tracked several types of energy flows through each fuel life cycle. Each energy flow is defined below.
Total Primary Energy. All raw materials extracted from the environment can contain⁶ energy. In
estimating the total primary energy inputs to each fuel's life cycle, we consider the cumulative energy
content of all resources extracted from the environment.
5 This statement is an oversimplification. We consider the energy trapped in soybean oil to be renewable because it
is solar energy stored in liquid form through biological processes that are much more rapid than the geologic time
frame associated with fossil energy formation. Also, other forms of nonrenewable energy besides fossil fuel exist.
6
The energy "contained" in a raw material is the amount of energy that would be released by the complete
combustion of that raw material. This "heat of combustion" can be measured as either a higher or a lower heating
value. Combustion causes CO₂ and water to form. Higher heating values consider the amount of energy released
when the final combustion products are gaseous CO₂ and liquid water. Lower heating values take into account the
loss of energy associated with the vaporization of the liquid water combustion product. Our energy content is based
on the lower heating values for each material.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
8
NREL/TP-580-24772
Feedstock Energy. Energy contained in raw materials that end up directly in the final fuel product is
termed "feedstock energy." For biodiesel production, feedstock energy includes the energy contained
in the soybean oil and methanol feedstocks that are converted to biodiesel. Likewise, the petroleum
directly converted to diesel in a refinery contains primary energy that is considered a feedstock
energy input for petroleum diesel. Feedstock energy is a subset of the primary energy inputs.
Process Energy. The second major subset of primary energy is "process energy." This is limited to
energy inputs in the life cycle exclusive of the energy contained in the feedstock (as defined in the
previous bullet). It is the energy contained in raw materials extracted from the environment that does
not contribute to the energy of the fuel product itself, but is needed in the processing of feedstock
energy into its final fuel product form. Process energy consists primarily of coal, natural gas,
uranium, and hydroelectric power sources consumed directly or indirectly in the fuel's life cycle.
Fossil Energy. Because we are concerned about the renewable nature of biodiesel, we also track the
primary energy that comes from fossil sources specifically (coal, oil, and natural gas). All three of the
previously defined energy flows can be categorized as fossil or nonfossil energy.
Fuel Product Energy. The energy contained in the final fuel product, which is available to do work in
an engine, is what we refer to as the "fuel product energy." All other things being equal, fuel product
energy is a function of the energy density of each fuel.
4.1.1.2 Defining Energy Efficiency
We report two types of energy efficiency. The first is the overall "life cycle energy efficiency." The
second is the "fossil energy ratio." Each illuminates a different aspect of the life cycle energy balance for
the fuels studied.
The calculation of the life cycle energy efficiency is the ratio of fuel product energy to total primary
energy:
Life Cycle Energy Efficiency = Fuel Product Energy/Total Primary Energy
This ratio estimates the total amount of energy that goes into a fuel cycle compared to the energy
contained in the fuel product. This efficiency accounts for losses of feedstock energy and additional
process energy needed to make the fuel.
The fossil energy ratio tells us something about the degree to which a fuel is or is not renewable. It is
defined as the ratio of the final fuel product energy to the amount of fossil energy required to make the
fuel:
Fossil Energy Ratio = Fuel Energy/Fossil Energy Inputs
If the fossil energy ratio has a value of zero, a fuel is completely nonrenewable and provides no usable
fuel product energy because of the fossil energy consumed to make the fuel. If the fossil energy ratio is 1,
it is still nonrenewable because no energy is lost in the process of converting the fossil energy to a usable
fuel. For fossil energy ratios greater than 1, the fuel begins to leverage the fossil energy required to make
it available for transportation. As a fuel approaches "complete" renewability, its fossil energy ratio
approaches "infinity." That is, a completely renewable fuel has no fossil energy requirements.
From a policy perspective, these are important considerations. Policy makers want to understand how
much a fuel increases the renewability of our energy supply. Another implication of the fossil energy ratio
is the question of climate change. Higher fossil energy ratios imply lower net CO₂ emissions. This is a
secondary aspect of the ratio, as we are explicitly estimating total CO2 emissions from each fuel's life
cycle. Nevertheless, the fossil energy ratio checks on our calculation of CO₂ life cycle flows (the two
should be correlated).
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
9
NREL/TP-580-24772
4.1.1.3 Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle Energy Consumption
Table 3 and Figure 1 show the total primary energy requirements for the key steps in producing and using
petroleum diesel. The LCI model shows that 1.2007 MJ of primary energy is used to make 1 MJ of
petroleum diesel fuel. This corresponds to a life cycle energy efficiency of 83.28%¹.
The distribution of the primary energy requirements for each stage of the petroleum diesel life cycle is
shown in Table 3. In Figure 1, the stages of petroleum diesel production are ranked from highest to lowest
in terms of primary energy demand. Ninety-three percent of the primary energy demand is for extracting
crude oil from the ground. About 88% of the energy shown for crude oil extraction is associated with the
energy value of the crude oil. The crude oil refinery step for making diesel fuel dominates the remaining
7% of the primary energy use.
Removing the feedstock energy of the crude from the primary energy total allows us to analyze the
relative contributions of the process energy used in each life cycle. Process energy used in each stage of
the petroleum life cycle is shown in Figure 2. Process energy demand represents 20% of the energy
ultimately available in the petroleum diesel fuel product. About 90% of the total process energy is in
refining (60%) and extraction (29%). The next largest contribution to total process energy is for
transporting foreign crude oil to domestic petroleum refiners.
Table 3: Primary Energy Requirements for the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
Stage
Primary Energy (MJ per MJ of Fuel)
Percent
Domestic Crude Production
0.5731
47.73%
Foreign Crude Oil Production
0.5400
44.97%
Domestic Crude Transport
0.0033
0.28%
Foreign Crude Transport
0.0131
1.09%
Crude Oil Refining
0.0650
5.41%
Diesel Fuel Transport
0.0063
0.52%
Total
1.2007
100.00%
There are some significant implications in the process energy results shown in Figure 2 regarding trends
for foreign and domestic crude oil production and use. Transportation of foreign crude oil by tanker
carries a fourfold penalty for energy consumption compared to domestic petroleum transport because it
increases the travel distance for foreign oil by roughly a factor of four.
At the same time, domestic crude oil extraction is more energy intensive than foreign crude oil
production. Advanced oil recovery practices in the United States represent 11% of the total production
volume, compared to 3% for foreign oil extraction. Advanced oil recovery uses twice as much primary
energy per kilogram of oil than conventional extraction. Advanced crude oil extraction requires almost 20
times more process energy than onshore domestic crude oil extraction because the processes are energy
intensive and the amount of oil recovered is lower than with other practices. Domestic crude oil supply is
essentially equal to foreign oil supply (50.26% versus 49.74%) in our model, but its process energy
requirement is 62% higher than that of foreign crude oil production (see Figure 2).
7
Using the total primary energy reported in Table 3, Life Cycle Energy Efficiency = 1 MJ of Fuel Product
Energy/1.2007 MJ of Primary Energy Input = 0.8328.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
10
NREL/TP-580-24772
Domestic Crude Production
Foreign Crude Oil Production
Crude Oil Refining
Foreign Crude Transport
Diesel Fuel Transport
Domestic Crude Transport
0.0000
0.1000
0.2000
0.3000
0.4000
0.5000
0.6000
MJ per MJ of Fuel
Figure 1: Ranking of Primary Energy Demand for the Stages of Petroleum Diesel
0.2500
0.2000
MJ per MJ Fuel
0.1500
0.1000
0.0500
0.0000
Domestic
Foreign
Domestic
Foreign
Crude Oil
Diesel Fuel
Crude
Crude Oil
Crude
Crude
Total
Refining
Transport
Production
Production
Transport
Transport
Process Energy
0.0361
0.0223
0.0033
0.0131
0.1198
0.0063
0.2009
Figure 2: Process Energy Demand for Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
If our present trend of increased dependence on foreign oil continues, we can expect the life cycle energy
efficiency of petroleum diesel to worsen because of the higher energy costs of transporting foreign crude
to the United States. Also, with declining domestic oil supplies, we may see increased energy penalties
for domestic crude oil extraction, as advanced oil recovery becomes more common.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
11
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 4 and Figure 3 summarize the fossil energy inputs with respect to petroleum diesel's energy output.
Petroleum diesel uses 1.1995 MJ of fossil energy to produce 1 MJ of fuel product energy. This
corresponds to a fossil energy ratio of 0.8337⁸. Because the main feedstock for diesel production is a
fossil fuel, this ratio is, not surprisingly, almost identical to the life cycle energy efficiency of 83.28%. In
fact, fossil energy associated with the crude oil feedstock accounts for 93% of the total fossil energy
consumed in the life cycle. The fossil energy ratio is slightly less than the life cycle energy ratio because
there is a very small contribution to the total primary energy demand, which is met through hydroelectric
and nuclear power supplies related to electricity generation.
Table 4: Fossil Energy Requirements for the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
Stage
Fossil Energy (MJ per MJ of Fuel)
Percent
Domestic Crude Production
0.572809
47.75%
Foreign Crude Oil Production
0.539784
45.00%
Domestic Crude Transport
0.003235
0.27%
Foreign Crude Transport
0.013021
1.09%
Crude Oil Refining
0.064499
5.38%
Diesel Fuel Transport
0.006174
0.51%
Total
1.199522
100.00%
Domestic Crude Production
Foreign Crude Oil Production
Crude Oil Refining
Foreign Crude Transport
Diesel Fuel Transport
Domestic Crude Transport
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
MJ per MJ of Fuel
Figure 3: Ranking of Fossil Energy Demand for Stages of the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
8 Fossil Energy Ratio = 1 MJ Fuel Energy/1.1995 MJ of Fossil Energy Input = 0.8337.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
12
NREL/TP-580-24772
4.1.1.4 Biodiesel Life Cycle Energy Demand
Table 5 and Figure 4 present the total primary energy demand used in each stage of the biodiesel life
cycle. One MJ of biodiesel requires an input of 1.2414 MJ of primary energy, resulting in a life cycle
energy efficiency of 80.55%. Biodiesel is comparable to petroleum diesel in the conversion of primary
energy to fuel product energy (80.55% versus 83.28%). The largest contribution to primary energy (87%)
is the soybean oil conversion step because this is where the feedstock energy associated with the soybean
oil is included⁹. As with the petroleum life cycle, the stages of the life cycle that are burdened with the
feedstock energy overwhelm all other stages. Had the soybean oil energy been included with the farming
operation, soybean agriculture would have been the dominant consumer of primary energy. This is
analogous to placing the crude oil feedstock energy in the extraction stage for petroleum diesel fuel. The
next two largest primary energy demands are for soybean crushing and soybean oil conversion. They
account for most of the remaining 13% of the total demand. When we look at process energy separately
from primary energy, we see that energy demands in the biodiesel life cycle are not dominated by
soybean oil conversion (Figure 5). The soybean crushing demands 34.25% of the total process energy;
soy oil conversion demands 34.55%. Agriculture accounts for almost 25% of the total demand. Each
transportation step is only 2%-3% of the process energy used in the life cycle.
Table 6 and Figure 6 summarize the fossil energy requirements for the biodiesel life cycle. Because 90%
of its feedstock requirements (soybean oil) are renewable, biodiesel's fossil energy ratio is favorable.
Biodiesel uses 0.3110 MJ of fossil energy to produce 1 MJ of fuel product; this equates to a fossil energy
ratio of 3.215. In other words, the biodiesel life cycle produces more than three times as much energy in
its final fuel product as it uses in fossil energy. Fossil energy demand for the conversion step is almost
twice that of its process energy demand, making this stage of the life cycle the largest contributor to fossil
energy demand. The use of methanol as a feedstock in the production of biodiesel accounts for this high
fossil energy demand. We have counted the feedstock energy of methanol coming into the life cycle at
this point, assuming that the methanol is produced from natural gas. This points out an opportunity for
further improvement of the fossil energy ratio by substituting natural gas-derived methanol with
renewable sources of methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols.
4.1.1.5 Effect of Biodiesel on Life Cycle Energy Demands
Compared on the basis of primary energy inputs, biodiesel and petroleum diesel are essentially
equivalent. Biodiesel has a life cycle energy efficiency of 80.55%, compared to 83.28% for petroleum
diesel. The slightly lower efficiency reflects a slightly higher demand for process energy across the life of
cycle for biodiesel. On the basis of fossil energy inputs, biodiesel enhances the effective use of this finite
energy resource because it leverages fossil energy inputs by more than three to one.
9 Energy contained in the soybean oil represents, in effect, the one place in the biodiesel life cycle where input of
solar energy is accounted for. Total radiant energy available to soybean crops is essentially viewed as "free" in the
life cycle calculations. It becomes an accountable element of the life cycle only after it has been incorporated in the
soybean oil. This is analogous to counting the feedstock energy of crude petroleum as the point in its life cycle
where solar energy input occurs. Petroleum is essentially stored solar energy. The difference between petroleum and
soybean oil as sinks for solar energy is their time scale. Soybean oil traps solar energy on a rapid ("real time") basis;
petroleum storage occurs in geologic time. This difference in the dynamic nature of solar energy use is the key to
our definitions of renewable and nonrenewable energy.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
13
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 5: Primary Energy Requirements for Biodiesel Life Cycle
Stage
Primary Energy
Percent
(MJ per MJ of Fuel)
Soybean Agriculture
0.0660
5.32%
Soybean Transport
0.0034
0.27%
Soybean Crushing
0.0803
6.47%
Soy Oil Transport
0.0072
0.58%
Soy Oil Conversion
1.0801
87.01%
Biodiesel Transport
0.0044
0.35%
Total
1.2414
100.00%
Soy Oil Conversion
Soybean Crushing
Soybean Agriculture
Soy Oil Transport
Biodiesel Transport
Soybean Transport
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
MJ per MJ of Fuel
Figure 4: Ranking of Primary Energy Demand for Stages of the Biodiesel Life Cycle
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
14
NREL/TP-580-24772
0.2500
0.2000
MJ per MJ of Fuel
0.1500
0.1000
0.0500
0.0000
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soy Oil
Soy Oil
Biodiesel
Total
Agriculture
Transport
Crushing
Transport
Conversion
Transport
Process Energy
0.0573
0.0034
0.0794
0.0072
0.0801
0.0044
0.2318
Figure 5: Process Energy Requirements for Biodiesel Life Cycle
Table 6: Fossil Energy Requirements for the Biodiesel Life Cycle
Stage
Fossil Energy (MJ per MJ of Fuel)
Percent
Soybean Agriculture
0.0656
21.08%
Soybean Transport
0.0034
1.09%
Soybean Crushing
0.0796
25.61%
Soy Oil Transport
0.0072
2.31%
Soy Oil Conversion
0.1508
48.49%
Biodiesel Transport
0.0044
1.41%
Total
0.3110
100.00%
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
15
NREL/TP-580-24772
Soy Oil Conversion
Soybean Crushing
Soybean Agriculture
Soy Oil Transport
Biodiesel Transport
Soybean Transport
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
MJ per MJ Fuel
Figure 6: Fossil Energy Requirements versus Fuel Product Energy for the Biodiesel Life Cycle
4.1.2 CO₂ Emissions
4.1.2.1 Accounting for Biomass-Derived Carbon
Biomass plays a unique role in the dynamics of carbon flow in our biosphere. Carbon is biologically
cycled when plants such as soybean crops convert atmospheric CO₂ to carbon-based compounds through
photosynthesis. This carbon is eventually returned to the atmosphere as organisms consume the biological
carbon compounds and respire. Biomass-derived fuels reduce the net atmospheric carbon in two ways.
First, they participate in the relatively rapid biological cycling of carbon to the atmosphere (via engine
tailpipe emissions) and from the atmosphere (via photosynthesis). Second, they displace fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel combustion releases carbon that took millions of years to be removed from the atmosphere;
combustion of biomass fuels participates in a process that allows CO₂ to be rapidly recycled to fuel. The
net effect of shifting from fossil fuels to biomass-derived fuels is thus to reduce the amount of CO₂ in the
atmosphere.
Because of the differences in the dynamics of fossil carbon flow and biomass carbon flow to and from the
atmosphere, biomass carbon must be accounted for separately from fossil-derived carbon. The LCI model
tracks carbon from the point at which it is taken up as biomass via photosynthesis to its final combustion
as biodiesel used in an urban bus. The biomass-derived carbon that becomes CO₂ leaving the tailpipe is
subtracted from the total CO₂ emitted by the bus because it is ultimately reused to produce new soybean
oil. To ensure that we accurately credit the biodiesel LCI for the amount of recycled CO2, we provide a
material balance on biomass carbon.
The material balance shows all the biomass carbon flows associated with the delivery of 1 bhp-h of
engine work (Figure 7). For illustration, only the case of 100% biodiesel is shown. Lower blend rates
proportionately lower the amount of biomass carbon credited as part of the recycled CO2. Carbon
incorporated in the meal fraction of the soybeans is not included in the carbon balance. Only carbon in the
fatty acids and triglycerides used to produce biodiesel are tracked. Not all the carbon incorporated in fatty
acids and triglycerides becomes CO₂ after biodiesel is combusted. Some oil is lost in the meal by-product.
Glycerol is removed from the triglycerides as a by-product. Fatty acids are removed as soaps and waste.
Finally, carbon released in combustion ends up as CO2, CO, THC, and TPM. Of the 169.34 grams of
carbon absorbed in the soybean agriculture stage, only 148.39 grams (87%) end up in biodiesel. After
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
16
NREL/TP-580-24772
Soybean Production
Soybean Crushing
Soy Oil
Biodiesel
Biodiesel
Biodiesel End Use
Transport
Production
Transport
148.05
-0.34
g carbon
g of carbon
in CO₂
in THC, CO and TPM
recycled
-148.39
169.34
g carbon
g carbon
from combustion
in fat and oil
1 bhp-h
of delivered work
148.39 g carbon
in biodiesel
1.24 kg
160.81
soybeans
g carbon
-1.74
in soy oil
g carbon
in solid waste
-0.81
-8.31
g carbon in
-7.73
g carbon
-2.36
wastewater
g carbon in
in glycerine
g carbon
meal
and soapstock
in wastewater
residual oil
Figure 7: Biomass Carbon Balance for Biodiesel Life Cycle (g carbon/bhp-h)¹⁰
10 All numbers presented as carbon equivalent. To calculate actual CO₂ emissions, multiply carbon equivalent numbers by 3.67 (the ratio of the molecular weight
of CO₂ divided by the molecular weight of carbon).
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
17
NREL/TP-580-24772
accounting for carbon that ends up in other combustion products, 148.05 grams of carbon end up as
543.34 grams of tailpipe CO2. This CO₂ is subtracted from the diesel engine emissions as part of the
biological recycle of carbon. No credit is taken for the 13% of the carbon that ends up in various by-
products and waste streams.
4.1.2.2 Comparison of CO₂ Emissions for Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel
Table 7 and Figure 8 summarize CO₂ flows from the total life cycles of biodiesel and petroleum diesel
and the total CO₂ released at the tailpipe for each fuel. The dominant source of CO₂ for both the petroleum
diesel and the biodiesel life cycles is the combustion of fuel in the bus. For petroleum diesel, CO₂ emitted
from the tailpipe represents 86.54% of the total CO₂ emitted across the entire life cycle of the fuel. Most
remaining CO₂ comes from emissions at the oil refinery, which contribute 9.6% of the total CO₂
emissions. For biodiesel, 84.43% of the CO₂ emissions occur at the tailpipe. The remaining CO₂ comes
almost equally from soybean agriculture, soybean crushing, and soy oil conversion to biodiesel. Figure 9
shows the effect of biodiesel blend levels on CO₂ emissions.
700.00
15.66%
reduction
600.00
500.00
g CO2/bhp-h
400.00
300.00
78.45%
200.00
reduction
100.00
0.00
Petroleum
B20
B100
Diesel
Net CO2
633.28
534.10
136.45
Figure 8: Comparison of Net CO2 Life Cycle Emissions for
Petroleum Diesel and Biodiesel Blends¹¹
Table 7: Tailpipe Contribution to Total Life Cycle CO₂ for
Petroleum Diesel and Biodiesel
(g CO₂/bhp-h)
Fuel
Total Life
Total Life
Total Life
Tailpipe
Tailpipe
Total
% of Total
Cycle Fossil
Cycle Biomass
Cycle
Fossil
Biomass
Tailpipe
CO₂ from
CO₂
CO₂
CO₂
CO2
CO₂
CO₂
Tailpipe
Petroleum Diesel
633.28
0.00
633.28
548.02
0.00
548.02
86.54%
B100
136.45
543.34
679.78
30.62
543.34
573.96
84.43%
11 Net CO₂ calculated by setting biomass CO₂ emissions from the tailpipe to zero.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
18
NREL/TP-580-24772
0.9
0.8
0.7
Percent Reduction in Carbon
0.6
Emissions
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent Biodiesel
Figure 9: Effect of Biodiesel Blend Level on CO₂ Emissions
At the tailpipe, biodiesel (most of which is renewable) emits 4.7% more CO2 than petroleum diesel. The
nonrenewable portion comes from the methanol. Biodiesel generates 573.96 g/bhp-h compared to 548.02
g/bhp-h for petroleum diesel. The higher CO2 levels result from more complete combustion and the
concomitant reductions in other carbon-containing tailpipe emissions. As Figure 8 shows, the overall life
cycle emissions of CO₂ from B100 are 78.45% lower than those of petroleum diesel. The reduction is a
direct result of carbon recycling in soybean plants. B20 reduces net CO₂ emissions by 15.66%.
4.1.3 Primary Resource Consumption for Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel
B100 effects a 95% reduction in life cycle consumption of petroleum. Figure 10 compares petroleum oil
consumption for petroleum diesel, B20, and B100. TB20 provides a proportionate reduction of 19%.
Coal and natural gas consumption is a different story (Figure 11). B100 increases life cycle consumption
of coal by 19%. This reflects the higher overall demand for electricity in the biodiesel life cycle, relative
to petroleum diesel. Electricity demand for soybean crushing is the dominant factor in electricity
consumption for biodiesel because of the mechanical processing and solids handling equipment involved.
Life cycle consumption of natural gas increases by 77% for biodiesel versus petroleum diesel. Two
factors contribute to this increase: (1) the assumed use of natural gas for the supply of steam and process
heat in soybean crushing and soy oil conversion, and (2) the use of natural gas to produce methanol used
in the conversion step.
The biodiesel life cycle uses much more water than does the petroleum diesel life cycle. Water use for
petroleum diesel is not even visible on a plot scaled to show biodiesel use (Figure 12): the biodiesel life
cycle's water use is three orders of magnitude higher. The impact of this water use is not addressed in this
report. We offer no simple way to compare water use between the two life cycles because there is no
simple equivalency in its use and final disposition.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
19
NREL/TP-580-24772
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
kg/bhp-h
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Petroleum Dies el
B20
B 100
Oil
0.188939
0.153173
0.0101122
Figure 10: Petroleum Consumption for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
0.0350
0.0300
0.0250
kg/bhp-h
0.0200
0.0150
0.0100
0.0050
0.0000
Petroleum Diese
B20
B 100
Cod
0.0059
0.0061
0.0070
Natural Gas
0.0162
0.0191
0.0307
Figure 11: Coal and Natural Gas Consumption for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
4.1.4 Life Cycle Emissions of Regulated and Nonregulated Air Pollutants
Regulated air pollutants include the following:
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter Smaller Than 10 Microns (PM10)
Sulfur Oxides (SOx)
Non-Methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC)
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
20
NREL/TP-580-24772
100
80
60
kg/bhp-h
40
20
0
Petroleum Diesel
B20
B100
Water
0.0262924
17.2938
86.3636
Figure 12: Water Use for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
The emissions of these air pollutants are regulated at the tailpipe for diesel engines. SOx has no specific
tailpipe limits, but it is controlled through the sulfur content of the fuel. Other air emissions included in
this study are CH₄, benzene, formaldehyde, nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrochloric acid (HCI), hydrofluoric
acid (HF), and ammonia. N₂O is associated with agricultural field emissions. HCI and HF are associated
with coal combustion in electric power stations. Ammonia is released primarily during fertilizer
production.
In this section, we discuss overall differences in the emissions of the biodiesel and petroleum life cycles.
More detail on the sources of the differences is presented in the comprehensive report, Life Cycle
Inventories of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. Because of variations in how
various data sources for the life cycle stages report PM and HC emissions, we report them differently
from the EPA definitions. Benzene and formaldehyde emissions are not consistently reported. Some
sources explicitly define emissions for NMHC; others do not specify this distinction. HC data are
reported as THC, defined as:
THC = (CH 4 + Benzene + formaldehyde + HCunspecified + HCnoCH4)
where:
THC = total hydrocarbons
CH₄ = methane
HCunspecified = unspecified hydrocarbons
HCₙ₀CH₄ = hydrocarbons excluding methane
Likewise, particulates are combined as a single category according to the following formula:
TPM = (PM10 PMunspecified)
where:
TPM = total particulate matter
PM10 = particulate matter smaller than 10 microns
PMunspecified = unspecified particulate matter
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
21
NREL/TP-580-24772
4.1.4.1 Comparison of Life Cycle Air Emissions for Biodiesel and Petroleum
Diesel
Figure 13 summarizes the differences in life cycle air emissions for B100 and B20 versus petroleum
diesel fuel. Replacing petroleum diesel with biodiesel in an urban bus reduces life cycle air emissions for
all but three of the pollutants we tracked. The largest reduction (34.5%) in air emissions that occurs when
B100 or B20 is used as a substitute for petroleum diesel is for CO. The effectiveness of B20 in reducing
life cycle emissions of CO drops proportionately with the blend level. Biodiesel could, therefore,
effectively reduce CO emissions in CO non-attainment areas¹².
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
-5.00%
-10.00%
-15.00%
-20.00%
-25.00%
-30.00%
-35.00%
-40.00%
CO
TPM
HF
SOx
CH4
NOx
HCI
THC
B20
-6.90%
-6.48%
-3.10%
-1.61%
-0.51%
2.67%
2.71%
7.19%
B100
-34.50
-32.41
-15.51
-8.03%
-2.57%
13.35%
13.54%
35.96%
Figure 13: Life Cycle Air Emissions for B100 and B20
Compared to Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle Air Emissions
B100 exhibits life cycle TPM emissions that are 32.41% lower than those of the petroleum diesel life
cycle. As with CO, the effectiveness of biodiesel in reducing TPM drops proportionately with blend level.
This is a direct result of reductions in PM10 at the tailpipe, which are 68% lower for urban buses
operating on B100 versus petroleum diesel. PM10 emitted from mobile sources is a major EPA target
because of its role in respiratory disease. Urban areas represent the greatest risk in terms of numbers of
people exposed and levels of PM10. Using biodiesel in urban buses may be an option for controlling life
cycle emissions of TPM and tailpipe emissions of PM10¹³.
12
Urban areas in the United States that do not currently meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO levels.
13
Among the options EPA is considering, are regulations that would control levels of PM2.5 (particles of 2.5
microns or smaller), as opposed to PM10. That is, EPA is focusing its attention on the very smallest particles in
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
22
NREL/TP-580-24772
Biodiesel's life cycle produces 35% more THC than petroleum diesel's life cycle, even though tailpipe
THC emissions for B100 are 37% lower. Most of the biodiesel life cycle THC emissions are produced
during agricultural operations and soybean crushing. To understand the implications of the higher life
cycle emissions, it is important to remember that HC emissions, as with all the air pollutants discussed,
have localized effects. Where these emissions occur is important. The fact that biodiesel's tailpipe HC
emissions are lower than diesel fuel's may indicate that the biodiesel life cycle has beneficial effects on
urban air quality (although diesel engines have very low HC emission levels and diesel HC emissions
have not been a concern in the past).
Methane (CH₄) is a special subset of THC emissions and a greenhouse gas. CH₄ emissions are 25% of the
life cycle emissions of THC for B100 and 32% for B20. All occur in the fuel production and use steps and
are associated with producing the methanol used to transesterify soy oil. CH₄ life cycle emissions are
2.57% lower for B100 and 0.51% for B20, compared to petroleum diesel. Though the reductions achieved
with biodiesel are small, they could be significant when estimated on the basis of its "CO2 equivalent"-
warming potential¹⁴
Perhaps the next most critical pollutant from the perspectives of human health and environmental quality
is NOₓ. The triumvirate of CO, THC, and NOx is the key to controlling ground-level ozone and smog in
urban areas. Their relative importance is not at all clear because they interact in a complex set of chemical
reactions catalyzed by sunlight¹⁵ Biodiesel effectively reduces tailpipe emissions of CO and THC.
However, both B100 and B20 have life cycle and tailpipe emissions of NOₓ that are higher than those of
petroleum diesel. B100 and B20 exhibit 13.35% and 2.67% higher life cycle emissions, respectively,
compared to petroleum diesel. TPM and NOx emissions are inversely related in diesel engine exhaust;
reducing one often leads to increasing the other. Reducing NOₓ emissions involves a combination of fuel
research and engine technology research. Within these two arenas, there may be solutions for meeting the
tougher future standards for NOx without sacrificing the other benefits of this fuel.
B100 and B20 life cycle SOₓ emissions are lower than those of petroleum diesel (8.03% and 1.61%,
respectively). This is a relatively low reduction given that biodiesel completely eliminates SOx at the
tailpipe. The amount of SOx in the emissions from a diesel engine is a function of sulfur content in the
fuel. With this in mind, EPA regulates diesel fuel's sulfur content, rather than tailpipe SOx emissions. The
latest requirements for diesel fuel include 0.05 wt% sulfur for on-highway fuel. Biodiesel can eliminate
tailpipe SOx emissions because it is sulfur-free. On a life cycle basis, the SOx emissions eliminated at the
tailpipe are offset by creating SOx emissions when we produce the electricity used in the biodiesel life
cycle.
HCI and HF emissions are emitted in very low levels as a part of the life cycles of both petroleum diesel
and biodiesel. We tracked them because they may contribute to acidification in the environment. Both
pollutants occur as a result of coal combustion in electric power generation. HF levels drop with biodiesel
in proportion to the amount of electricity consumed over the life cycle of the fuel. This amounts to
15.51% reductions for B100. HCI emissions, on the other hand, increase with biodiesel blend. Biodiesel
has additional sources of HCI associated with the production and use of inorganic acids and bases used in
the conversion step. B100 increases emissions of HCI by 13.54%.
ambient air. Data collected in this study focus on PM10. Our results bode well for lowering levels of PM10, but no
information on the effect of biodiesel on this new class of smaller particles is available.
14
CH₄ is a more potent greenhouse gas, but its half-life in the atmosphere is less than that of CO2. These
complications illustrate why we have avoided making quantitative judgments about the life cycle impacts of
biodiesel. We leave it to others to evaluate the comparative inventories of biodiesel and diesel in terms of their
positive and negative impacts.
15 For an excellent discussion of the complexities of urban air pollution, see Seinfeld, John H., "Urban Air Pollution:
State of the Science" in Science 243:745-752.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
23
NREL/TP-580-24772
The results shown so far describe life cycle emission levels. Many people are also interested in only a
subset of life cycle emissions, those being tailpipe emissions. For the reader's convenience, Table 8
provides the data used to model tailpipe emissions for biodiesel, diesel, and B20.
Table 8: Effect of Biodiesel on Tailpipe Emissions (g/bhp-h)
Emission
Diesel Fuel
20% Biodiesel
100% Neat
Baseline
Blend
Biodiesel
Carbon Dioxide (fossil)
633.28
534.10
136.45
Carbon Dioxide (biomass)
0
108.7
543.34
Carbon Monoxide
1.2
1.089
0.6452
Hydrocarbons
0.1
0.09265
0.06327
Particulate Matter (PM10)
0.08
0.0691
0.02554
Sulfur Oxides (as SO₂)
0.17
0.14
0
Nitrogen Oxides (as NO₂)
4.8
4.885
5.227
4.1.5 Life Cycle Emissions of Water Effluents
We tracked a number of waterborne effluents through the life cycles for petroleum diesel and biodiesel
such as biological oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand. However, relatively few data were
consistently available. Therefore, comparisons of the two life cycles are limited to total wastewater flow.
Foreign and domestic crude oil extraction account for 78% of the total wastewater flow in the petroleum
diesel life cycle. Only about 12% is associated with the refinery. Two-thirds of the total wastewater flows
in the biodiesel life cycle come from the soy oil conversion process. This step generates relatively dilute
wastewater that contains oil and soap from soybean oil processing. A comparison of total wastewater
flows from the life cycles for petroleum diesel and biodiesel is shown in Figure 14. Petroleum diesel
generates roughly five times as much wastewater flow as biodiesel.
0.500
0.400
liters/bhp-h
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
Petroleum Diesel
B20
B100
Wastewater
0.469
0.395
0.099
Figure 14: Comparison of Total Wastewater Flows for Petroleum Diesel and Biodiesel Life Cycles
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
24
NREL/TP-580-24772
4.1.6 Comparison of Solid Waste Life Cycle Flows
Solid waste from the two life cycles is classified as hazardous or nonhazardous. In the petroleum diesel
life cycle, hazardous waste is derived almost entirely from the crude oil refining process. The minor levels
of solid waste that show up in foreign crude transport and diesel fuel transport are indirect flows of solid
waste attributable to production of diesel fuel and gasoline used in the transportation process. Total
hazardous waste generation amounts to 0.41 g/bhp-h of engine work. About half of the nonhazardous
waste generated by petroleum diesel is in the crude oil refining step. Another third is generated in the
foreign and domestic crude oil extraction steps. Total nonhazardous waste generation in the petroleum
diesel life cycle is 2.8 g/bhp-h.
Hazardous waste from the biodiesel life cycle amounts to only 0.018 g/bhp-h of engine work. Soybean
agriculture contributes 70% of the hazardous waste from the life cycle, but these flows are indirect
charges against agriculture for hazardous waste flows associated with the production of diesel fuel and
gasoline used on the farm. Nonhazardous solid waste generated in the biodiesel life cycle is 12.7 g/bhp-h
of engine work. This waste is primarily trash and tramp metals removed from soybeans brought into the
soybean crushing stage. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste
generation for petroleum diesel and biodiesel. The B100 life cycle produces 96% less hazardous waste
compared to petroleum diesel life cycle. Nonhazardous waste, on the other hand, is twice as high for
B100.
4.2 Sensitivity Studies
4.2.1 The Effect of Enhanced Location for Biodiesel Production and Use
We studied the effect of placing biodiesel production and use in a more optimal location, which mimics
how similar renewable fuels industries, such as ethanol, have developed. We therefore modeled biodiesel
production and use in the Chicago area, which provides a good outlet for biodiesel sales for the urban bus
end use. More importantly, it allows us to consider near-term access to some of the best soybean farmland
in the United States. This scenario reduces the distances required to move beans, oil, and biodiesel, and
allows us to take advantage of high-yield soybean agriculture.
5.00E-04
4.00E-04
3.00E-04
kg/bhp-h
2.00E-04
1.00E-04
0.00E+00
Petroleum Diesel
B20
B100
Hazardous Waste
4.13E-04
3.34E-04
1.82E-05
Figure 15: Hazardous Waste Generation for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
25
NREL/TP-580-24772
0.007
0.006
0.005
kg/bhp-1
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
Petroleum Diesel
B20
B100
Nonhazardous Waste
0.00282423
0.00348482
0.00612718
Figure 16: Nonhazardous Waste Generation for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100
Basic changes to the model are shown inTable 9. The reduced distance for shipping soybean oil is based
on an evaluation of the location of crushing facilities to potential market locations. The results of the
model with these assumptions is presented for B100 (the improvements or worsening in life cycle
emissions relative to petroleum diesel are proportional to the blend level).
Placing biodiesel production and use in the Chicago area has benefits for energy consumption (see Figure
17). Impacts on natural gas and coal consumption are minor (2% and 5% savings, respectively).
Petroleum consumption, on the other hand, drops by 23.53% from the national average base case. This
leads to a slight increase in life cycle energy efficiency from the base case value of 80.55% to 81.84%.
Biodiesel's fossil energy ratio increases from 3.22 to 3.43. The energy savings occur primarily on the
farm. Process energy requirements for farming drop by 22%. Energy savings of 56% are also realized in
the soy oil transport step, but this impact is smaller because of the relatively small contribution to energy
demand made by this step. Water use drops dramatically (31%) in the Chicago area scenario.
Table 9: Model Parameters for the Chicago Area Biodiesel Scenario
Model Parameter
Baseline Scenario
Chicago Area Scenario
Soybean
Yields and inputs based on national average
Yields and inputs based on
Agriculture
(14 key soybean-producing states)
production of soybeans from
Illinois and Iowa. 50% of soybean
supply is taken from each state.
Transport
National average distance for soy oil of 571
Reduced travel distance of 248
Distances
miles
miles.
The percent reductions of key air pollutants are tabulated in Figure 18. The change to a more favorable
location has modest benefits for air emissions. The exception is for ammonia emissions, which drop by
45%. Ammonia emissions occur as a result of nitrogen fertilizer use. The large drop in life cycle ammonia
emissions is due to improved yields and lower nitrogen fertilizer use rates per kg of soybeans produced.
The next largest saving is for PM10 emissions, which drop 10% from the base case. This is consistent
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
26
NREL/TP-580-24772
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Coal
Natural Gas
Petroleum
%
4.45%
2.13%
23.53%
Percent Reduction
Figure 17: The Effect of an Enhanced Location for Biodiesel on
Life Cycle Consumption of Primary Energy Resources
Ammonia (NH3)
Particulates (PM10)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Total Hydrocarbons
Total Particulates
Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2)
Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)
Particulates (unspecified)
Hydrogen Chloride (HCI)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
Percent Reduction
Figure 18 : Reductions in Life Cycle Air Emissions for the Chicago Area Biodiesel Scenario
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
27
NREL/TP-580-24772
Solid Waste (hazardous)
Wastewater
Solid Waste
(nonhazardous)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Percent Reduction
Figure 19: Water and Solid Waste Emissions Reductions for the Chicago Area Biodiesel Scenario
with the reductions in petroleum consumption associated with diesel fuel use on the farm. The Chicago
scenario provides an additional savings of 7% in CO₂ emissions. All other emissions savings are less than
5%, compared to the base case.
Reductions in life cycle waste emissions are shown in Figure 19. Hazardous waste emissions are reduced
dramatically. The 28% reduction corresponds to lower levels of diesel fuel use in soybean farming.
Wastewater is reduced by 5.79%; nonhazardous solid wastes by 2.72%.
4.2.2 The Effect of Energy Requirements for Conversion of Soybean Oil to
Biodiesel
A range of energy inputs for converting soybean oil to biodiesel was used in the LCI model to test the
effect of these modeling assumptions on the overall LCI of biodiesel. A survey of current commercial
technology for biodiesel reveals a high degree of variation on reported steam and electricity requirements
for the transesterification process. High and low estimates for both steam and electricity used in the model
are indicated in Table 10.
Table 10: Range of Energy Inputs for Soybean Oil Conversion Tested in LCI Model
Energy Use
Low Value
Baseline Scenario
High Value
Steam (kcal/metric ton of biodiesel produced)
95,022.7
329,793.5
617,922.2
Electricity (kWh/metric ton of biodiesel produced)
9.0
28.9
40.0
Steam requirements vary 3.5-fold from the lowest to the highest value. Electricity varies 4.4-fold. This
high degree of variability warrants testing the range of our assumptions to assess the uncertainty of our
pertinent results. Also, energy inputs for soybean oil conversion comprise a substantial part of the life
cycle, and make this variability even more important.
The effect of conversion energy variability on the demand for primary energy resources is shown in
Figure 20. Overall effects on primary energy are considerably smaller than the range of variation in
energy inputs. Oil consumption is unaffected. Because natural gas is the sole source of process energy in
the conversion model, it is the most affected by the energy requirements assumed for this stage. Natural
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
28
NREL/TP-580-24772
gas consumption increases 16.41% for the high energy inputs and decreases by 13.5% for the low energy
inputs. Coal consumption ranges from +6.55% to -11.7% of the base case.
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-5.0%
-10.0%
-15.0%
-20.0%
Oil
Coal
Natural Gas
% High
0.16%
6.55%
16.41%
% Low
-0.3%
-11.7%
-13.5%
Figure 20: The Effect of Conversion Energy Requirements on
Primary Energy Resource Demands for Biodiesel
Figure 21 presents changes in biodiesel's life cycle air emissions across the range of assumed energy
requirements for soybean oil conversion. Life cycle emissions are listed in order of increasing sensitivity
to energy requirement assumptions. Changes in steam requirements (and hence natural gas consumption)
strongly affect CH₄ emissions, which can vary by 14% in both directions. From a greenhouse gas
perspective, this is probably the most significant change observed in this sensitivity study. CO₂ shows
similar responses. Unspecified PM and SOx emissions are also affected significantly, reflecting emissions
from combustion for electricity generation. The other emissions show little response to the energy inputs
for soy oil conversion.
The relative changes in solid waste and wastewater emissions are presented in Figure 22. Wastewater and
hazardous solid waste emissions change little across the range of assumed energy requirements.
Nonhazardous solid waste shows a moderate response.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
29
NREL/TP-580-24772
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
-5.00%
-10.00%
-15.00%
-20.00%
HC
HC less
PM
NOx
CO
PM10
HCI
CO2
HF
SOx
CH4
unspec
CH4
unspec
% High
0.03%
0.04%
0.43%
0.63%
0.76%
6.60%
6.91%
11.83%
9.29%
14.25%
14.03%
% Low
-0.04%
-0.04%
-0.43%
-0.55%
-0.62%
-11.82%
-12.39%
-10.66%
-16.65%
-12.54%
-13.13%
Figure 21: The Effect of Soybean Oil Conversion Energy Demands on Air Emissions for Biodiesel
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
-1.00%
-2.00%
-3.00%
-4.00%
-5.00%
-6.00%
Solid Waste
Wastewater
Solid Waste (Non-
(Hazardous)
hazardous)
% High
0.04%
0.11%
2.75%
% Low
-0.06%
-0.19%
-4.93%
Figure 22: The Effect of Soybean Oil Conversion Energy Demands on
Water and Solid Waste Emissions for Biodiesel
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
30
NREL/TP-580-24772
5
Conclusions
Conducting LCIs is fraught with difficulties. Incomplete data are the rule rather than the exception, so we
have varying degrees of confidence in our results. The most complete data, and hence the most reliable
conclusions, are for overall energy balance and CO₂ emissions. More importantly, our sensitivity studies
show that the estimates of CO₂ emissions and energy requirements are very robust; that is, they show little
change in response to changes in key assumptions.
5.1 Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Flows
Major analytical results are presented below in order of decreasing confidence:
Energy Balance. Biodiesel and petroleum diesel have very similar energy efficiencies.
The base-case model estimates life cycle energy efficiencies of 80.55% for biodiesel
versus 83.28% for petroleum diesel. The lower efficiency for biodiesel reflects slightly
higher process energy requirements for converting the energy contained in soybean oil to
fuel. In terms of effective use of fossil energy resources, biodiesel yields around 3.2 units
of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in the life cycle. By
contrast, petroleum diesel's life cycle yields only 0.83 units of fuel product energy per
unit of fossil energy consumed. Such measures confirm the "renewable" nature of
biodiesel. The life cycle for B20 has a proportionately lower fossil energy ratio (0.98
units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed). B20's fossil
energy ratio reflects the impact of adding petroleum diesel into the blend.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions. The demand for fossil energy associated with biodiesel is
low, so its life cycle emissions of CO₂ are, not surprisingly, much lower. Per unit of work
delivered by a bus engine, B100 reduces net CO₂ emissions by 78.45% compared to
petroleum diesel. B20's life cycle CO₂ emissions are 15.66% lower. Thus, replacing
petroleum diesel with biodiesel in urban buses is an extremely effective strategy for
reducing CO₂ emissions.
Total Particulate Matter and Carbon Monoxide Emissions. The B100 life cycle
produces 32% less TPM and 35% less CO than the petroleum diesel life cycle. Most
occur because of lower emissions at the tailpipe. PM10 emissions from an urban bus
operating on biodiesel are 68% lower than those from an urban bus operating on
petroleum diesel. Biodiesel reduces tailpipe CO emissions by 46%.
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions. At the same time, NOₓ emissions are 13% higher for the
B100 life cycle compared to the petroleum diesel life cycle. B20 has 2.67% higher life
cycle emissions of NOx. Again, this increase is attributed to higher NOₓ emissions at the
tailpipe. An urban bus run on B100 has NOx emissions that are 8.89% higher than a bus
operated on petroleum diesel.
Total Hydrocarbons. We also report 35% higher life cycle emissions of THC compared
to petroleum diesel, but tailpipe THC emissions are 37% lower for B100 than for
petroleum diesel. The increase results from hexane being released during soybean
processing and to volatilization of agrochemicals applied on the farm. We have less
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
31
NREL/TP-580-24772
confidence in the HC air emissions results from this study. Air emissions data are often
not reported on the same basis. For example, data run the gamut from specific HC
compounds such as CH₄ or benzene to broad measures of THCs, which are not measured
consistently. Our data set includes numbers reported as unspecified HCs and as NMHCs.
We therefore view these data with caution.
Water and Solid Waste. We report total wastewater and solid waste flows. Our results
show that biodiesel life cycle wastewater flows are almost 80% lower than those of
petroleum diesel. Biodiesel is also responsible for only about 5% of the hazardous waste
generated by petroleum diesel. However, we do not have a consistent basis for comparing
these flows because their final disposition and composition are so different.
Water Consumption. On a life cycle basis, B100 uses water at a level that is three orders
of magnitude higher than petroleum diesel.
5.2 Next Steps
We designed this study to identify and quantify the advantages of biodiesel as a substitute for petroleum
diesel. These advantages are substantial, especially in the area of energy security and greenhouse gas
control. We have also identified weaknesses or areas of concern for biodiesel-such as its NOₓ and THC
emissions. We see these as opportunities for further research. We hope our findings will be used to focus
future biodiesel research on these critical issues.
Next steps for this work include:
Use the LCI to assess the relative environmental and public health effects of
petroleum diesel and biodiesel to better understand the benefits associated with
biodiesel.
Quantify the costs and benefits of biodiesel.
Assess the economic impact of biodiesel as an alternative fuel (e.g., its effects on jobs
and the trade deficit).
Evaluate other feedstock sources.
Incorporate new health effects data on emissions from biodiesel and petroleum
diesel.
Develop regional life cycle models for biodiesel use.
Evaluate performance of newer diesel engines and new fuel production technologies.
This study provides the building blocks for assessing the relative merits of this fuel under a wide variety
of circumstances. It also provides information that local regulators seek when developing approaches to
solving our air, water, and solid waste problems. We leave it to these individuals to use this information
to customize their evaluations of their particular questions. We ask only that it be used wisely.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
32
NREL/TP-580-24772
6
Life Cycle Data Tables
The life cycle analysis produced data describing each major step in the production and use of biodiesel
and diesel fuel. These tables are provided here to aid the reader in understanding where various emissions
and inputs occurred during the life cycles. In order to understand these tables the following issues need to
be considered. First, all the inputs and outflows associated with each step in the life cycles are shown as
units per brake horsepower hour of diesel engine service. Second, these data have already been
"allocated;" in other words, if a process creates two products, the inputs (energy, chemicals, feedstocks)
and the emissions (air, water, solid wastes) have been divided up between the two products based on a
mass allocation. Only the fraction of the inputs and emissions that have been allocated to diesel fuel and
biodiesel are shown. Third, some inputs, such as electricity, are not shown directly. Instead, the raw
materials consumed to make the electricity are shown. So instead of electricity, you will see estimates of
coal, natural gas, or uranium inputs. Lastly, the degree of accuracy shown, e.g., number of spaces right of
a decimal point, are not indicative of the confidence we place in the number itself. The degree of accuracy
shown provides an opportunity for another researcher to reproduce our numbers. Our confidence in how
accurately the number reflects actual industry averages may be quite different, and has been described in
earlier sections. For more information, please see the detailed, comprehensive report, Life Cycle
Inventories of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus.
The life cycle tables are provided in the following order: energy efficiency, carbon balance, inputs, and
air emissions.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
33
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 11: Primary Energy Demand for the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle Inventory
Stage
Primary Energy (MJ per MJ of Fuel)
Percent
Domestic Crude Production
0.5731
47.73%
Foreign Crude Oil Production
0.5400
44.97%
Domestic Crude Transport
0.0033
0.28%
Foreign Crude Transport
0.0131
1.09%
Crude Oil Refining
0.0650
5.41%
Diesel Fuel Transport
0.0063
0.52%
Total
1.2007
100.00%
Table 12: Fossil Energy Requirements for the Petroleum Diesel Life Cycle
Stage
Fossil Energy (MJ per MJ of Fuel)
Percent
Domestic Crude Production
0.572809
47.75%
Foreign Crude Oil Production
0.539784
45.00%
Domestic Crude Transport
0.003235
0.27%
Foreign Crude Transport
0.013021
1.09%
Crude Oil Refining
0.064499
5.38%
Diesel Fuel Transport
0.006174
0.51%
Total
1.199522
100.00%
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
34
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 13: Primary Energy Requirements for Biodiesel Life Cycle
Stage
Primary Energy (MJ per MJ of Fuel)
Percent
Soybean Agriculture
0.0660
5.32%
Soybean Transport
0.0034
0.27%
Soybean Crushing
0.0803
6.47%
Soy Oil Transport
0.0072
0.58%
Soy Oil Conversion
1.0801
87.01%
Biodiesel Transport
0.0044
0.35%
Total
1.2414
100.00%
Table 14: Fossil Energy Requirements for the Biodiesel Life Cycle
Stage
Fossil Energy (MJ per MJ of Fuel)
Percent
Soybean Agriculture
0.0656
21.08%
Soybean Transport
0.0034
1.09%
Soybean Crushing
0.0796
25.61%
Soy Oil Transport
0.0072
2.31%
Soy Oil Conversion
0.1508
48.49%
Biodiesel Transport
0.0044
1.41%
Total
0.3110
100.00%
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
35
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 15: Biomass Carbon Balance for Biodiesel Life Cycle (g/bhp-h)¹ᵉ
Life Cycle Stage
g carbon per bhp-h
g CO₂/bhp-h
Soybean Production
169.34
621.48
Uptake of carbon in triglycerides and fatty
169.34
621.48
acids
Soybean Crushing
160.81
590.16
Release of carbon via residual oil in meal
(7.73)
(28.36)
Release of carbon via waste
(0.81)
(2.97)
Biodiesel Production
148.39
544.60
Release of carbon via glycerine
(8.26)
(30.32)
Release of carbon via wastewater
(2.36)
(8.67)
Release of carbon via solid waste
(1.74)
(6.40)
Release of carbon in soapstock
(0.05)
(0.17)
Combustion in bus
-
Release of carbon in biodiesel (total)
(148.39)
(544.60)
Release of carbon in CO₂
(148.05)
(543.34)
Release of carbon in HC
(0.04)
(0.16)
Release of carbon in CO
(0.28)
(1.01)
Release of carbon in PM
(0.02)
(0.08)
Release of carbon in HC, CO, and PM
(0.34)
(1.26)
16 Highlighted life cycle stages show cumulative carbon moving through the life cycle. Soybean production shows a
net inflow of 169 grams of carbon for 1 bhp-h of engine work. Each subsequent stage consumes carbon, so that, at
the point of end-use combustion, the carbon which remains is zero. Inflows of carbon are shown as positive numbers
and outflows are shown as negative numbers (in parentheses).
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
36
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 16: LCI Inventory of Raw Material Consumption for Petroleum Diesel (kg/bhp-h)
Raw Material
Domestic
Foreign
Domestic
Foreign
Crude Oil
Diesel
Total
Crude Oil
Crude Oil
Crude Oil
Crude Oil
Refining
Fuel
Production
Production
Transport
Transport
Transport
Coal
0.00119
0.00104
0.000334
0.000372
0.002544
0.000405
0.00589
Limestone
0.00023
0.00020
6.36E-05
7.09E-05
0.00048
7.73E-05
0.00112
Natural Gas
0.00596
0.00311
5.19E-05
0.000188
0.00679
9.27E-05
0.01620
Oil
0.09331
0.09231
0.000196
0.001793
0.000734
0.000598
0.18894
Perlite
0
0
4.21E-08
4.05E-07
4.24E-05
1.33E-07
0.00004
Phosphate
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rock
Potash
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sodium
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chloride
Uranium
2.86E-08
2.50E-08
8.00E-09
8.91E-09
6.03E-08
9.71E-09
1.41E-07
Water Used
0.02025
0.00549
3.58E-05
0.000258
0.000167
9.33E-05
0.02629
Table 17: Life Cycle Consumption of Primary Resources for Biodiesel
Raw Material
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Biodiesel
Total
Agriculture
Transport
Crushing
Oil
Oil
Transport
Transport
Conversion
Coal
0.001328
0.000017
0.003221
0.000035
0.002405
0.000022
0.00703
Limestone
0.000172
0.000003
0.000614
0.000007
0.000340
0.000004
0.00114
Natural Gas
0.002599
0.000046
0.008729
0.000097
0.019219
0.000059
0.03075
Oil
0.006826
0.000533
0.000519
0.001133
0.000413
0.000689
0.01011
Perlite
1.330E-06
1.211E-07
0.000E+00
2.575E-07
0.000E+00
1.566E-07
1.87E-06
Phosphate Rock
0.009397
0
0
0
0
0
0.00940
Potash
0.004417
0
0
0
0
0
0.00442
Sodium Chloride
0
0
0
0
0.00350
0
0.00350
Uranium
7.293E-08
3.97E-10
7.721E-08
8.44E-10
3.542E-08
5.15E-10
1.87E-07
Water Used
86.2493
7.41E-05
0.0007109
0.000158
0.113338
9.58E-05
86.364
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
37
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 18: LCI of Air Emissions for Petroleum Diesel (g/bhp-h)¹⁷
Air Pollutant
Domestic
Foreign
Domestic
Foreign
Crude
Diesel Fuel
Diesel
Total
Crude Oil
Crude Oil
Crude
Crude
Oil
Transport
Use
Production
Production
Transport
Transport
Refining
NH₃
4.39E-09
3.84E-09
1.85E-09
6.69E-09
1.08E-08
3.92E-09
0.00E+00
3.15E-08
Benzene
2.14E-05
2.03E-05
4.15E-08
4.00E-07
1.45E-07
1.31E-07
0.00E+00
4.24E-05
CO
0.006091
0.011088
0.001064
0.001546
0.043144
0.006875
1.200000
1.269810
Formaldehyde
0.000277
0.000281
0.000001
0.000005
0.000002
0.000002
0.000000
0.000568
NMHC
0.013648
0.015506
0.000103
0.000306
0.000470
0.001433
0.100000
0.131467
Hydrocarbons
9.76E-05
8.54E-05
1.02E-02
5.53E-02
1.82E-01
1.19E-03
0.00E+00
2.49E-01
(unspecified)
Hydrogen
0.000644
0.000564
0.000180
0.000201
0.001357
0.000219
0.000000
0.003164
Chloride
Hydrogen
8.05E-05
7.05E-05
2.25E-05
2.51E-05
1.70E-04
2.73E-05
0.00E+00
3.96E-04
Fluoride (HF)
CH₄
0.045281
0.093621
0.002656
0.004278
0.053414
0.003589
0.000000
0.202839
NOₓ
0.024000
0.015720
0.006651
0.010242
0.129891
0.022055
4.800000
5.008558
N₂O
0.004049
0.001149
0.000034
0.000082
0.001255
0.000216
0.000000
0.006784
PM10
0.000194
0.000066
0.000159
0.000006
0.001459
0.002210
0.080000
0.084094
Particulates
0.016796
0.014704
0.004956
0.008848
0.079114
0.005864
0.000000
0.130281
(unspecified)
SOx
0.128553
0.083197
0.011121
0.080880
0.440475
0.009708
0.172402
0.926335
17 Note that THC (not listed in the table) is the sum of benzene, formaldehyde, hydrocarbons (unspecified), NMHC
(non-methane hydrocarbons), and CH₄. Similarly, data we report in other parts of this study for TPM (total
particulate matter) represent the sum of PM10 and particulates (unspecified). This latter category represents data in
which the type of particulates measured was not specified.
18 Unspecified hydrocarbons are not the sum of NMHC and CH₄. This is because the unspecified category of
emissions is ambiguous. We do not know if original data sources were referring to THC or NMHC. This ambiguity
is a common problem in life cycle analysis because of the need to use data collected across a wide range of sources.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
38
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 19: LCI Air Emissions for Biodiesel (g/bhp-h)¹⁹
Air Pollutant
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean
Soybean Oil
Biodiesel
Biodiesel
Total
Agriculture
Transport
Crushing
Oil
Conversion
Transport
Use
Transport
NH₃
0.0734632
2.2735E-09
8.02E-06
4.83E-09
5.4472E-09
2.94E-09
0
0.073471
Benzene
1.313E-06
1.195E-07
0
2.54E-07
0
1.54E-07
0
1.84E-06
CO
0.136856
0.00602014
0.01054
0.012727
0.0125584
0.007782
0.64524
0.831723
Formaldehyde
1.78E-05
1.60E-06
5.20E-13
3.40E-06
2.38E-13
2.07E-06
0
2.48E-05
NMHC)
0.0539448
0.00129623
0.323816
0.00019
0.00031698
0.001676
0.06327
0.44451
Hydrocarbons
0.11591
0.00070209
0.000263
0.00442
0.0296103
0.000908
0
0.151813
(unspecified)
HCI
0.000282
8.9382E-06
0.001738
1.9E-05
0.00153278
1.16E-05
0
0.003593
HF
1.23E-05
1.12E-06
2.17E-04
2.38E-06
9.97E-05
1.45E-06
0
0.000334
CH₄
0.0283374
0.00063603
0.064765
0.001371
0.101683
0.000823
0
0.197616
NOₓ
0.201205
0.0166995
0.065193
0.062899
0.0829794
0.021588
5.22672
5.677283
N₂O
0.0013084
0.00017635
0.000315
4.07E-05
0.00022874
0.000228
0
0.002297
PM10
0.0137127
0.00201252
0.000592
0.001541
0.00056848
0.002602
0.025544
0.046572
Particulates
0.0154781
0.00037925
0.045433
0.000806
0.0357402
0.000491
0
0.098329
(unspecified)
SOₓ
0.0939614
0.00261499
0.248258
0.005551
0.498182
0.003382
0
0.851949
19 Note that THC (not listed in the table) is the sum of benzene, formaldehyde, hydrocarbons (unspecified), NMHC
(non-methane hydrocarbons), and CH₄. Similarly, data we report in other parts of this study for TPM (total
particulate matter) represent the sum of PM10 and particulates (unspecified). This latter category represents data in
which the type of particulates measured was not specified.
20 Unspecified hydrocarbons are not the sum of NMHC and CH₄. This is because the unspecified category of
emissions is ambiguous. We do not know if original data sources were referring to THC or NMHC. This ambiguity
is a common problem in life cycle analysis because of the need to use data collected across a wide range of sources.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
39
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 20: Air Emissions for Petroleum Diesel, B20, and B100 (g/bhp-h)²¹
Pollutant
Petroleum
B20
B100
Diesel
CH₄
0.202839
0.201795
0.197616
NOₓ
0.006784
0.005887
0.002297
CO
1.26981
1.18219
0.831723
NMHC
0.131467
0.194075
0.44451
Hydrocarbons (unspecified)²
0.249053
0.229605
0.151814
Benzene
4.24E-05
3.43E-05
1.84E-06
Formaldehyde
0.000568
0.000459
2.48E-05
PM10
0.084094
0.076589
0.046572
Particulates (Unspecified)
0.130281
0.123891
0.098329
SOₓ
0.926335
0.911458
0.851949
NOₓ
5.00856
5.1423
5.67728
HCI
0.003164
0.00325
0.003593
HF
0.000396
0.000383
0.000334
NH₃
3.15E-08
0.014694
0.073471
21 Note that THC (not listed in the table) is the sum of benzene, formaldehyde, hydrocarbons (unspecified), NMHC
(Non Methane Hydrocarbons), and CH₄. Similarly, data we report in other parts of this study for TPM (total
particulate matter) represent the sum of PM10 and Particulates (unspecified). This latter category represents data in
which the type of particulates measured was not specified.
22 Unspecified hydrocarbons are not the sum of NMHC and CH₄. This is because the unspecified category of
emissions is ambiguous. We do not know if original data sources were referring to total hydrocarbons or NMHC.
This ambiguity is a common problem in life cycle analysis because of the need to use data collected across a wide
range of sources.
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
40
NREL/TP-580-24772
Table 21: Relative Change in Life Cycle Air Emissions for
Fuels Containing 20% and 100% Biodiesel
Pollutant
B20
B100
CO
-6.90%
-34.50%
PM
-6.48%
-32.41%
HF
-3.10%
-15.51%
SOx
-1.61%
-8.03%
CH₄
-0.51%
-2.57%
NOx
2.67%
13.35%
HCI
2.71%
13.54%
HC
7.19%
35.96%
0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
-0.05
-0.1
CH4
% Change from Diesel
-0.15
SOx
-0.2
HF
-0.25
PM
CO
-0.3
-0.35
*
-0.4
% Blend
Figure 23: Effect of Biodiesel Blend on Life Cycle Air Emissions of CH₄, SOx, HF, PM10, and CO
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
41
NREL/TP-580-24772
0.4
0.35
0.3
% Change from Diesel
0.25
NOx
0.2
HCI
0.15
HC
0.1
0.05
0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
% Blend
Figure 24: Effect of Biodiesel Blend Level on Air Emissions of NOx, NMHC and HCI
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
42
NREL/TP-580-24772
0.431
0.116
MJ
Crude Oil In
0.01012
2.7E-03
MJ
Crude Oil In
kg
kg
0.23
CO₂
0.00855
0.00231
0.063
MJ
Foreign
kg
CO₂
kg
MJ
Domestic
0.0101
Electricity
Advanced
0.00299
Advanced
MJ
8.1E-04
2.7E-03
MJ
Onshore
Onshore
Electricity
MJ
MJ
0.05
Extraction
Extraction
MJ
0.00088
Natural Gas
kg
2.4E-04
0.012
Natural Gas
0.0462
MJ
0.0100
0.0027
kg
MJ
kg Oil out
kg Oil out
0.0125
2.70
MJ
MJ
Crude Oil In
0.0635
2.98
kg
0.0701
Crude Oil In
MJ
0.043
Domestic
Foreign
MJ
0.01284
0.01396
0.047
Electricity
Conventional
Conventional
MJ
MJ
Electricity
MJ
0.0159
Onshore
Onshore
0.0590
MJ
Natural Gas
Extraction
Extraction
0.00112
Natural Gas
MJ
3.0E-04 kg
kg
0.01588 MJ
0.0630
0.0696
0.0590
kg Oil Out
kg Oil out
MJ
0.800
0.020
0.81
Crude Oil In
MJ
kg
Domestic
Foreign
0.019
Crude Oil In
MJ
Conventional
Conventional
kg
0.024
0.01
0.00046
MJ
Natural Gas
Offshore
Offshore
Natural Gas
MJ
2.8E-04 kg
kg
0.01475 MJ
Extraction
Extraction
0.0242
0.0183
0.018
MJ
kg Oil out
kg Oil out
5.31E-07
1.6E-06
MJ
Electricity
Domestic
Foreign Crude
MJ
Total
1.6E-07 MJ
Electricity
Crude
Loading and
Barge
3.7E-08 MJ
Rail
2.3E-08 MJ
Loading and
Unloading
Total
4.6E-07 MJ
Tanker
6.5E-08 MJ
Unloading
Barge
1.7E-08 MJ
Truck
3.2E-08 MJ
Rail
3.1E-11 MJ
0.0059
Tanker
4.5E-07 MJ
MJ
Heavy Fuel Oil
0.0913
0.0904
Total
6.8E-02 MJ
kg
kg
8.27E-02
Heavy Fuel Oil
Barge
4.0E-06 kg
MJ
Domestic
1.7E-04 MJ
Foreign
Total
6.846E-02 MJ
Tanker
0.00163 kg
Crude
Crude
Barge
3.97E-06 kg
0.0027
6.8E-02 MJ
Transport
Transport
1.67E-04 MJ
MJ
Diesel Fuel
Tanker
2.60E-03 kg
Total
2.3E-03 MJ
0.0913
0.0904
6.83E-02 MJ
Rail
2.7E-05 kg
kg
kg
1.88E-06
1.2E-03 MJ
Diesel Fuel
MJ
Truck
2.6E-05 kg
Rail
3.60E-08 kg
0.0161
1.1E-03 MJ
1.56E-06 MJ
MJ
Electricity
0.0155
Pipeline
0.00476 MJ
0.182
kg
Electricity
MJ
0.11
0.002 kg
Pipeline
0.00460
0.019
Other Gasoline Liquids
MJ
0.01553 MJ
MJ
Heavy Oil
0.016
0.01573 MJ
0.00037 kg
8.4E-04
Propane
Crude Oil
MJ
8.28E-04 MJ
MJ
Refinery
Coal
0.012396
0.0037 kg
3.0E-04
Steam
MJ
0.172 kg
4.0E-05 kg
MJ
Catalyst
0.123
0.03622 MJ
4.5E-03
Electricity
MJ
4.48E-03 MJ
Coke
MJ
0.20
Natural Gas
0.194 MJ
1.53E-04 kg
3.6E-03
MJ
3.03E-03 MJ
MJ
Diesel
1.10E-07
3.2E-08 MJ
0.019
Electricity
MJ
MJ
Truck
Other
0.0279
Loading
Products
Electricity
MJ
Diesel Fuel
1 bhp-h
2.6E-05 kg
0.00476 MJ
Truck
Pipelne
Transport
Transport
0.172 kg
7.5000 MJ
Figure 25: Primary Energy Balance for the Petroleum Diesel Fuel Life Cycle (with Mass Allocation)
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
43
NREL/TP-580-24772
3.214
0.867
MJ
Crude Oil In
0.076
0.020
MJ
Crude Oil In
kg
kg
1.73
CO₂
0.468
MJ
0.064
0.0172
CO₂
Domestic
MJ
0.0756
kg
Foreign
MJ
Electricity
Advanced
kg
Advanced
0.020
0.022
Onshore
Onshore
Electricity
0.006
MJ
0.35
MJ
Extraction
Extraction
MJ
MJ
Natural Gas
0.093
0.0066 0.35
0.0750
0.0202
Natural Gas
MJ
kg MJ
kg Oil out
kg Oil out
0.0018 kg
20.16
0.0931 MJ
MJ
Crude Oil In
22.26
0.474
0.523
Crude Oil In
MJ
0.447
kg
Domestic
Foreign
kg
MJ
Electricity
Conventional
Conventional
0.494
0.13
0.146
Electricity
MJ
MJ
Onshore
Onshore
MJ
9.583
Extraction
Extraction
0.62
MJ
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
MJ
0.182 kg
0.470 kg Oil out
0.519 kg Oil out
0.0117 kg
9.583 MJ
0.6174 MJ
6.23
Crude Oil In
0.147 kg
6.17
MJ
Domestic
Foreign
0.145
Crude Oil In
MJ
Conventional
Conventional
kg
1.96
Natural Gas
Offshore
Offshore
1.80
MJ
0.03717 kg
Natural Gas
MJ
1.95616 MJ
Extraction
Extraction
0.03413 kg
0.136 kg Oil out
0.135 kg Oil out
1.79653 MJ
1.17E-05
3.96E-06
MJ
MJ
Electricity
Domestic
Foreign Crude
10 MJ
Total
1.2E-06 MJ
Crude
Electricity
Loading and
9.23E-07 Barge
2.7E-07 MJ
5.83E-07 Rail
1.7E-07 MJ
Loading and
Unloading
Total
3.5E-06 MJ
1o MJ
1.64E-06 Tanker
4.8E-07 MJ
Unloading
Barge
1.3E-07 MJ
4.30E-07
8.18E-07 Truck
2.4E-07 MJ
0.6817
0.6744
Rail
2.3E-10 MJ
7.80E-10
0.0441
MJ
Heavy Fuel Oil
kg
kg
Tanker
3.3E-06 MJ
1.13E-05
Truck
-
MJ
Total
3.7E-02 MJ
Barge
6.4E-05 kg
Heavy Fuel Oil
6.17E-01
MJ
2.7E-03 MJ
Domestic
Foreign
Total
6.167E-01 MJ
Tanker
8.1E-04 kg
Crude
Crude
Barge
2.96E-05 kg
0.0205
3.4E-02 MJ
Transport
Transport
1.24E-03 MJ
MJ
Diesel Fuel
Tanker
1.21E-02 kg
Total
1.7E-02 MJ
6.15E-01 MJ
Rail
2.0E-04 kg
1.40E-05
8.7E-03 MJ
Diesel Fuel
MJ
Truck
1.9E-04 kg
Rail
2.68E-07 kg
0.1203
8.4E-03 MJ
1.17E-05 MJ
MJ
Electricity
0.03430
0.1160
Pipeline
0.03555 MJ
1.3562
Electricity
MJ
0.80
Other Gasoline Liquids
0.015 kg
kg
MJ Pipeline
0.140
MJ
MJ
0.121
Propane
0.00226 kg
MJ
Crude Oil
0.00276 kg
0.11739 MJ
0.1159 MJ
Heavy Oil
0.0925
Refinery
Steam
0.0023
MJ
0.02763 kg
3.0E-04 kg
0.915
Electricity
0.270
Catalyst
MJ
0.1724
kg
0.0433
MJ
MJ
7.50
MJ
1.14E-03 kg
Coke
MJ
1.49
Natural Gas
0.028 Kg
0.0335 MJ
0.0271
MJ
1.46561 MJ
5.20E-04 kg
Diesel
MJ
5.25E-06
Electricity
0.0226 MJ
0.0190
MJ
1.6E-06
Truck
Other
MJ
MJ
0.00562 MJ
0.0279
Loading
Product
Electricity
MJ
Diesel Fuel
1 bhp-h
5.3E-04 kg
0.02324
Truck
Pipelne
Transport
Transport
0.1724 kg
Figure 26: Primary Energy Balance for Petroleum Diesel Fuel Life Cycle (No Mass Allocation)
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
44
NREL/TP-580-24772
0.092
Electricity
0.0110
0.0030 MJ
Ag Chemicals
MJ
MJ
3.48E-04 kg
0.051
Diesel Fuel
0.1835
0.0035 kg
CO₂
N-Fertilizer
MJ
MJ
0.1527 MJ
8.13E-04
0.019
Gasoline
0.0985
0.0018 kg
K₂O Fertilizer
MJ
MJ
0.083 MJ
Soybean
4.33E-03 kg
Agriculture
0.033
Propane
0.0070
0.356 kg
P-Fertilizer
MJ
MJ
0.007 MJ
2.53E-03 kg
Natural Gas
1.45E-05
2.67E-07 kg
Truck
MJ
1.41E-05 MJ
Loading
Electricity
1.59E-06
4.70E-07 kg
MJ
Truck
Diesel Fuel
0.0254
4.87E-04 kg
Transport
MJ
Soybean Meal
8.48E-03
Hexane
MJ
Electricity
0.158
0.047
MJ
Soybean
3.77E-04
MJ
Steam
Crushing
6.964
0.221
0.066 kg
MJ
MJ
Soybean
0.208
MJ
0.17 kg oil
Oil Energy
0.0265
Natural Gas
0.214
0.0040 kg
MJ
MJ
Rail Loading and
HCI
Electricity
3.52E-06
1.04E-06 MJ
Unloading
1.26E-03 kg
0.5893
MJ
MJ
Methanol
Rail Transport
0.015 kg
0.1571
Diesel Fuel
5.40E-02
1.03E-03
Sodium
MJ
MJ
Methoxide
4.02E-03 kg
0.0076
MJ
Soybean
Sodium
Electricity
Oil
0.0589
0.017 MJ
Hydroxide
Conversion
MJ
3.81E-04 kg
Steam
0.297
0.089 kg
0.20 kg Biodiesel
MJ
Glycerine
Soapstock
Electricity
6.18E-06
Truck Loading
MJ
1 bhp-h
Diesel Fuel
7.5 MJ
0.0329
Truck Transport
MJ
Figure 27: Primary Energy Balance for Biodiesel Fuel Life Cycle (with Mass Allocation)
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
45
NREL/TP-580-24772
10 Energy
1o Energy
Electricity
0.611
0.0731
0.020 MJ
Ag Chemicals
MJ
MJ
Diesel Fuel
2.32E-03 kg
0.340
1.2200
0.023 kg
CO₂
N-Fertilizer
MJ
MJ
1.02 MJ
5.41E-03 kg
Gasoline
0.129
0.3274
0.006 kg
K₂O Fertilizer
MJ
MJ
0.277 MJ
Soybean
0.029 kg
Agriculture
Propane
0.217
0.0463
0.045 MJ
P-Fertilizer
MJ
MJ
8.54E-04 kg
0.017 kg
Natural Gas
1.04 kg Soybeans (Dry)
9.6E-05
9.35E-05 MJ
MJ
Truck
1.78E-06 kg
Loading
Electricity
1.06E-05
3.13E-06 MJ
MJ
Diesel Fuel
Truck
0.1690
3.24E-03 kg
Transport
0.83 kg
MJ
1.41E-01 MJ
Soybean Meal
0.056
Electricity
Hexane
MJ
1.053
0.31
MJ
Soybean
2.51E-03 kg
MJ
Steam
Crushing
6.964
1.471
1.1
MJ
MJ
MJ
0.44
kg
Soybean
Natural Gas
0.21 kg Oil
Oil Energy
0.0321
1.425
1.38 MJ
MJ
MJ
Electricity
0.03 kg
Rail Loading and
HCI
4.27E-06
1.26E-06 MJ
Unloading
1.53E-03 kg
0.7152
MJ
MJ
Methanol
Diesel Fuel
Rail Transport
0.018 kg
0.1906
6.56E-02
1.26E-03 kg
Sodium
MJ
MJ
0.05 MJ
Methoxide
0.21 kg Oil
4.88E-03 kg
0.0092
Soybean
MJ
Sodium
Electricity
Oil
0.0714
0.021 MJ
Hydroxide
MJ
Conversion
Steam
4.63E-04 kg
1.471
0.27 MJ
0.20 kg Biodiesel
MJ
0.11 kg
Glycerine
0.043 kg
Soapstock
Electricity
1.40E-04 kg
6.63E-06
1.83E-06 MJ
Truck Loading
1 bhp-h
MJ
Diesel Fuel
0.0329
6.29E-04 kg
Truck Transport
MJ
0.027 MJ
0.2 kg
7.5 MJ
Figure 28: Primary Energy Balance for Biodiesel Fuel Life Cycle (No Mass Allocation)
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
46
NREL/TP-580-24772
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB NO. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)
2. REPORT DATE
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
May 1998
Technical Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
BF886002
6. AUTHOR(S): John Sheehan, James Duffield, Housein Shapouri, Michael Graboski, Vince Camobreco
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
REPORT NUMBER
1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, CO 80401-3393
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Ecobalance, Inc.
Colorado School of Mines, Colorado Institute for Fuels and Engine Research
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
1617 Cole Boulevard
NREL/TP-580-24772
Golden, CO 80401-3393
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
National Technical Information Service
UC-1503
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) This report presents the findings from a study of the life cycle inventories for petroleum diesel and biodiesel. It presents
information on raw materials extracted from the environment, energy resources consumed, and air, water, and solid waste emissions generated.
14. SUBJECT TERMS: biodiesel, lite cycle inventory, petroleum diesel
15. NUMBER OF PAGES: 60
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT
OF THIS PAGE
OF ABSTRACT
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18298-102
Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
47
NREL/TP-580-24772
For more information contact:
Michael Voorhies
K. Shaine Tyson
Program Manager
Biodiesel Project Manager
Office of Fuels Development
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
U.S. Department of Energy
1617 Cole Blvd
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Golden, CO 80401
Forrestal Building
Washington, D.C. 20585-0121
James Duffield
John Sheehan
Office of Energy
Biotechnology Center for Fuels and Chemicals
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1800 M. Street, NW
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd
Washington, D.C. 20036
Golden, CO. 80401
Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
OF ENERGY DEFA
UNITED STATES OF
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory
NREL
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
1-20-00
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Thursday, January 20, 2000
11
Look who's talking
On scandal
Parrots and chimps
In his new book,
CURRENTS IN
gain new levels of
William Safire, lead
language and raise the
columnist for The
CONTEMPORARY
question: Can they
New York Times,
THOUGHT.
reason?
takes stock of the rumors that destroy
Page 13
presidents and change history.
ii Hoos
Page 17
soundings
To Go Frauyton Gews I
Iim Bencivenga
The long search for plants with optimal
Internal properties
material properties starts to pay off.
he stuff of a thing can be
um morns Soybeans do neon we This 1 Prs
10
different from what you ex.
pect Take Silly Putty.
On first contact with It in gram-
mar school. thought the mushy
lump was an eraser pounded out
of shape When held it and rolled
Tough as nails
capied
It GIVE thin pencil. it felt like
clay! But when bunched It up in
Framp Ton
my fist and bounced It like a ball
By Lori Valigra
Special to The Christian Science Monitor
Sperling
had found antigravity matter
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
Ballentine
How could something so mal-
leable get such bounce? I'm cer
ack in 1940, when
Podesta
tain similar dets epeated by curl
B
Henry Ford wanted to
ous young. hands allover the
test the strength of a
world caused more kids to best
car trunk made from
come chemists than all the chem
an experimental SOV-
I
eur Send e-mail Ideas@csps com
14
Thursday, January 20, 2000
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
ideas
Cheap, versatile, and as strong as wood
GREEN MATERIALS from page 11
grows fully in seven months, tol
erates drought, and does not re
family. The panels are more shat-
quire extensive herbicides. It
ter-resistant than traditional
grows in regions where cotton
ones made by mixing polypropy-
and tobacco thrive Kenaf Indus
lene and wood flour or saw dust.
tries also is using -It to make
In addition, Deere & Co. is using
paper for commer ctal newsprint.
soy-based fiberglass composites
It has a 20,000 acre kenaf farm
in its tractor panels and hay
in Raymondville, Texas
balers.
"We're using a crop that is to
"The natural fibers are very
tally renewable on a yearly basis
ductile and they don't splinter, so
rather than cutting down 20-year
they manage energy well during
old forests," says David Agneta,
side impacts," says Ken Urolini.
president of Kafus Bio-Compos
area manager for door trim engi-
ites in Dedham, Mass
neering at Visteon Automotive
Kenaf isn't the only natural
Systems, a Ford Motor Co. enter-
fiber that has caught the imagi
prise in Utica, Mich. Mr. Urolini
nation of engineers and design
says natural-fiber composite
ers. Global Resource Technolo
components weigh about 30 per-
gles (GROT) of Madison, Wis., is
cent less than traditional wood-
using jute, sisal, wood coir flax
based materials. And, they cost
straw, kenaf, and even denim to
less because they take half as
make ever ything from plastic
long to make. Natural-fiber plas-
wood and tables to shipping.pal-
tic composites are formed when
lets and plogy banks Its prod-
a fiber sheet is heated along with
ucts are still in the development
propylene and molded. The now
stage.
sticky sheet, which forms a stiff
PHOTOS BY ROBERT HARBISON - STAFF
"Fibers are lower, cost and
panel backing, is then pressed
KENAF: Shown here under
stiffer, and you can mold them,
against the door fabric, eliminat-
cultivation (right) and being
which you can do with pure)
ing the extra step of applying a
extruded from a baler (above), it
wood," says Colin Felton, techni-
toxic adhesive.
is a new source of fiber for paper,
cal manager at GROT. "And,
"We intend to use these
products
pushed many young minds to
bean-based material, he stunned
25002
think about internal properties,
onlookers by whacking it with
nd not
whether or not they knew what
that meant.
an ax.
Files
We hope our cover story on the
Mr. Ford may have been an
ta vasalmes
development of new materials
eccentric, but he also was way
AA-16-83
114:22 be
from organic stuff will set readers
ed
thinking the way they did the first
ahead of his time in trying new
time they saw Silly Putty bounce.
materials to improve cars. The
Granted, an adult will necessar-
trunk was made of soy-protein
ily be more utilitarian than a
plastic reinforced with glass, a
child. And an adult will assume a
teleology: What can this stuff be
material that proved to be
used for, what's its purpose? The
stronger, lighter, and more flexi-
discovery. fabrication, and utiliza-
ble than conventional car pan-
tion of a renewable material from
nature that does not degrade the
els. Ford grew many varieties of
environment is highly valued.
soybeans in a field near his
Of course, thinking about inter-
company's Detroit auto factory
FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF HENRY FORD MUSEUM & GREENFIELD VILLAGE
nal properties isn't limited to new
to find a plant with the optimal material properties. By
DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME: Henry Ford
materials. Radical cultural change
takes an ax to a 1941-Ford automobile
can arise out of disparate, social
doing so, he planted the seed for the new crop of biomater-
to demonstate the sturdiness of soy-
combinations, challenging how
ial composites that are sprouting up today.
bean based materials. Ford was ahead
things are supposed to work
Now, more than six decades later, vehicle, lumber, furni-
of his time in testing out natural fibers
Skibi
Events in the news: AOL
for car parts.
ture, housing, and other manufacturers are finally seeing the
bedel emmi2
merges with Time Warner; Ver-
mont Supreme Court rules favor-
benefits of such "green" materials. New and better composite
artt tot lebeM
0 out! 6 beH
ably on same sex marriage; young
materials made from plastic combined with natural fibers or
vist not daibnly
Cuban boy washes up on Ameri-
plants such as hemp, kenaf, sisal, or soybeans can be man-
orly telled
can soil as his mother drowns
ufactured and used for at least the same cost as conven-
following on:
while fleeing Cuba.
The stuff of life, on first impres-
tional materials, and sometimes for much less.
sion, can bounce like Silly Putty.
The 1998 Ford Cougar, for example, has a polypropylene
All the more reason to constantly
art io termiw
plastic and kenaf-fiber composite in its interior door panels,
examine internal properties, mate-
rial or otherwise.
and the 2000 Mustang will have that material in its trunk
liners. Kenaf is a 14-foot tall, inedible plant in the hibiscus
anotams
CODESY
ha
Send e-mail to: [email protected]
See GREEN MATERIALS page 14
e
m including the
The company chops fibers
Mustang Escort and Taurus they could control the hybrids
and blends them with molten
Sable "Urolini says The only grown. "There may be crops
plastic in ratios of up to 70 per-
adrawback~now he says, is the
grown especially for composites,
cent fiber by weight. A table top
technology is new in the
just as there are for animal feeds
looks much like today's particle
United States that Ford has had
today. So it may be possible to
board, but it is as much as half
to import tooling and other capi-
have your crop and eat it too,"
the weight because ribs can be
tal equipment for pressing the
quips Wool.
molded to trim heft while retain-
composite panels from Europe,
Wool's laboratory is making
ing strength. And because a
where automakers are further
composites that substitute soy-
round table top, for example, can
ahead in using natural fiber com-
bean oil for plastic so that a fiber
be molded, there isn't the 30 per-
posites time Subtotal
composite will be all natural.
cent waste that comes with saw-
Richard Wool professor of
Composites date back to the
ing the edges off of a square piece
chemical engineering and direc-
middle ages, when builders used
of particle board or natural
tor of the Affordable Composites
straw to reinforce building
based products, such as the pound for kenaf, while glass
wood.
from Renewable Sources pro-
blocks to make castles. The most
resins in thermoset plastics, fibers are 50 cents to 75 cents
"Plastic composites can re-
gram Vat the University of
common composite today is
which are toxic and not readily
per pound. But when natural
place wood in many applications.
Delaware in Newark, says the
fiberglass. New composites are
biodegradable. By comparison,
fibers are made into mats, the
Although the basic material costs
field of composites came into its
being created by combining old
kenaf fiber mixed with a thermal
price rises to $1 to $1.50 per
are high, less material is used, so
own in the past 40 years because
materials in new ways.
plastic like polypropylene can be
pound.
there is much less waste," Mr.
of two developments: high-per-
"People are fusing old materi-
remelted and reused more easily.
Kafus
Bio-Composites,
a
Felton says. And the composites
formance fibers and high-perfor-
als with different physical treat-
"Kenaf stalks, which are com-
Kafus Industries subsidiary. has
can be melted down and reused
mance petroleum-based plastic
ments to make different materi-
parable in strength to carbon or
an agreement for joint develop-
up to five times.
resins.
als. It's like old-time alchemy,"
glass, are replacing
"Advances in the field were
says George Beylarian, founder
fiberglass,
and
dominated by defense priorities
and president of the Material
polypropylene
is
"
We re using a crop that is totally renewable on a yearly
until the Berlin Wall came down,
Connexion, a combination design
replacing liquid
and then the big push went in the
gallery, innovation clearing
resin, which elimi-
basis, rather than cutting down 20-year-old forests
direction of all-natural compos-
house, and new-materials data-
nates a lot of the
ites using agricultural bioprod-
base in New York.
toxic chemicals for
- David Agneta, Kafus Bio-Composites
ucts," Professor Wool says. At the
Liat Margolis, director of re-
workers," Ms. Mar-
same time, glant companies like
search at the Material Connexion,
golis says.
ment of biocomposites with Vis-
That's the case with GROT's
Monsanto and DuPont began to
says today's fiber composites are
For consumers to buy envi-
teon. In October 1999, Kafus
denim composite shipping pal-
focus on the crop business so
replacing traditional petroleum-
ronmental materials, they must
began commercial production of
lets, made from jean scraps from
52.00 viramia
be equal or better in performance
natural-fiber composites at its
nearby Lands' End, the catalog
Save 24% on a
than traditional products, says
plant in Elkhart, Ind.
clothing company.
David Saltman, vice president of
The long-fibered kenaf-com-
Denim composite pallets are
new Monitor subscription
marketing and new-product de-
posite panels that Visteon sells to
much stronger than wood. They
velopment at Kafus Industries
Ford are more flexible and shat-
cost about $20 to $30 apiece and
month THEY and lotion
Ltd. in Calabasas, Calif. "Con-
ter-resistant during accidents
last up to 100 trips. Wood pallets
or off news
Call toll-free:
sumers will buy environmental
than fiberglass, Mr. Saltman
cost $7 to $10 apiece and last
materials, but they won't pay
says. Kenaf composites also can
only about three trips, Felton
month subscription for
1-800-
extra for them," he says.
be used to make chairs, raised
says.
$69 more $25.501
According to Plastics Technol-
flooring for computer rooms,
Besides, Felton adds, "Wood is
456-2220
ogy magazine, prices for natural
packaging, and containers, he
becoming more scarce, and ma-
Orders
fibers range from 3 cents per
adds.
terials like jute and kenaf are
pound for jute to 25 cents per
Kenaf looks like hemp. It plentiful.
02/25/00 FRI 16:24 FAX
1
002
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Roger Ballentine
FROM:
Dan Reicher
SUBJECT: Green Algae (Pond Scum) Produces Hydrogen
We talked with Sig Gronich in OPT and Mike Seibert at NREL who provided the information on
our activities and the connection 10 the attached news release from Berkeley.
In FY 2000, we have provided $450,000 for work at NREL on hydrogen research related to algae
and an additional $200,000 for work at Berkeley on genetic mutations of the organisms. We have
asked for approximately the same amount in FY 2001. This is work that supports our bioenergy
effort and led to the following announcement (and the attached press release):
"Scientists Find Key to Producing Hydrogen from Algae: Michael Seibert, Maria Ghirardi
and Marc Forestier of NREL's Center for Basic Sciences along with scientists from the
University of California at Berkeley have discovered a mechanism for producing
significant quantities of hydrogen gas from algae. After allowing algae culture to grow
under normal conditions, the research team deprived it of sulfur, causing it to switch to an
alternate metabolism that generates hydrogen but not oxygen. Producing hydrogen from
algac could eventually provide a cost- effective and practical means to convert sunlight
and water into hydrogen for powering fuel cells. The near-term plans for powering fuel
cells involve generating hydrogen from fossil fuels such as natural gas, methanol or
gasoline. Visit <http://www.urel.berkeley.cdu/rclease> for details."
In a nutshell, this research is based on the knowledge that many organisms produce hydrogen,
which we have known for 60 years. Theoretically, these green organisms should be a ready
source of hydrogen, but the amount produced has been very small and it is very transitory. This
recent research has discovered that if we can adjust the photosynthesis process to allow for the
cell to used stored energy in a medium that is deprived of sulfur, hydrogen is the byproduct and
the hydrogen is produced in an amount that is collectable - approximately 4/10 of a quart from
each quart of algae over a few days. There is, however, much work to be done to make this a
viable source of hydrogen for fuel cell and other uses.
The principal contact at NREL is
Michael Seibert, Principal Scientist
Basic Sciences Center
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, CO 80401 USA
Phone: 1-303-384-6279 (Administrative Assistant (Ext. 6199)
FAX: 1-303-384-6150
E-mail [email protected] or [email protected]
02/25/00 FRI 16:24 FAX
5
003
University of California News Release
http://www.urel.berkeley.cdu/urel_I/CampusNews/PressRclcases/releascs/02-21-2000.hm
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
NEWS RELEASE, 02/20/00
UC Berkeley and Colorado scientists find
valuable new source of hydrogen fuel,
produced by common algae
Public Affairs, (510) 642-3734
By Kathleen Scalise, Public Affairs
WASHINGTON, D.C.- A metabolic switch that triggers algae to turn sunlight into large quantities
of hydrogen gas, a valuable fuel, is the subject of a new discovery to be presented by University of
California, Berkeley, scientists and their Colorado colleagues during a Feb. 21 press briefing at the
annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.
"I guess it's the equivalent of striking oil," said UC Berkeley plant and microbial biology professor
Tasios Melis. "It was enormously exciting, it was unbelievable." He first described the discovery in
the January 2000 issue of the journal Plant Physiology.
Melis and postdoctoral associate Liping Zhang of UC Berkeley made the discovery - funded by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen Program - with Dr. Michael Seibert, Dr. Maria
Ghirardi and postdoctoral associate Marc Forestier of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) in Golden, Colorado.
Currently, hydrogen fuel is extracted from natural gas, a non-renewable energy source. The new
discovery makes it possible to harness nature's own tool, photosynthesis, to produce the promising
alternative fuel from sunlight and water. A joint patent on this new technique for capturing solar
energy has been taken out by the two institutions.
So far, only small-scale cultures of the microscopic green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii have
been examined in the laboratory for their hydrogen production capabilities, Melis said.
"In the future, both small-scale industrial and commercial operations and larger utility
photobioreactor complexes can be envisioned using this process," he said.
While current production rates are not high enough to make the process immediately viable
commercially, the researchers believe that yields could rise by at least 10 fold with further research,
someday making the technique an attractive fuel-producing option.
Preliminary rough estimates, for instance, suggest it is conceivable that a single, small commercial
pond could produce enough hydrogen gas to meet the weekly fuel needs of a dozen or so
automobiles, Melis said.
The scientific team is just beginning to test ways to maximize hydrogen production, including
varying the particular type of microalga used and its growth conditions.
1013
2/25/00 2:28 PM
02/25/00 FRI 16:25 FAX
1
004
University of California News Release
http://www.urcl.berkeley.edu/urc] 1/CampusNews/PrcssReleases/relcascs/02-21-2000.hmf
Many energy experts believe hydrogen gas one day could become the world's best renewable source
of energy and an environmentally friendly replacement for fossil fuels.
"Hydrogen is so clean burning that what comes out of the exhaust pipe is pure water," Melis said.
"You can drink it."
Engineering advances for hydrogen storage, transportation and utilization, many sponsored by the
U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program, are beginning to make the fuel feasible to power automobiles and
buses and to generate electricity in this country, Seibert said.
"What has been lacking is a renewable source of hydrogen," he said.
For nearly 60 years, scientists have known that certain types of algae can produce the gas in this
way, but only in trace amounts. Despite tinkering with the process, no one has been able to make the
yield rise significantly without elaborate and costly procedures until the UC Berkeley and NREL
teams made this discovery.
The breakthrough, Melis said, was discovering what he calls a "molecular switch." This is a process
by which the cell's usual photosynthetic apparatus can be turned off at will, and the cell can be
directed to use stored energy with hydrogen as the byproduct.
"The switch is actually very simple to activate," Melis said. "It depends on the absence of an
essential element, sulfur, from the microalga growth medium."
The absence of sulfur stops photosynthesis and thus halts the cell's internal production of oxygen.
Without oxygen from any source, the anaerobic cells are not able to burn stored fuel in the usual
way, through metabolic respiration. In order to survive, they are forced to activate the alternative
metabolic pathway, which generates the hydrogen and may be universal in many types of algae.
"They're utilizing stored compounds and bleeding hydrogen just to survive," Melis said. "It's
probably an ancient strategy that the organism developed to live in sulfur-poor anaerobic
conditions."
He said the alga culture cannot live forever when it is switched over to hydrogen production, but
that it can manage for a considerable period of time without negative effects.
The researchers first grow the alga "photosynthetically, like every other plant on Earth," Melis said.
This allows the green-colored microorganisms to collect sunlight and accumulate a generous supply
of carbohydrates and other fuels.
When enough energy has been banked in this manner, the researchers tap it and turn it into
hydrogen. To do this, they transfer the liquid alga culture, which resembles a lime-green soft drink,
to stoppered one-liter glass bottles with no sulfur present. Then, the culture is allowed to consume
away all oxygen.
After about 24 hours, photosynthesis and normal metabolic respiration stop, and hydrogen begins to
bubble to the top of the bottles and bleed off into tall, hydrogen-collection glass tubes.
"It was actually a surprise when we detected significant amounts of hydrogen coming out of the
culture," Melis said. "We thought we would get trace amounts, but we got bulk amounts."
2 of 3
2/25/00 2:28 PM
02/25/00 FRI 16:25 FAX
1
005
University of California News Release
http://www.urel.bcrkelcy.edu/urel_/CampusNews/Prcseleases/releases/02-21-20).il
After up to four days of generating an hourly average of about three milliliters of hydrogen per liter
of culture, the culture is depleted of stored fuel and must be allowed to return to photosynthesis.
Then, two or three days later, it again can be tapped for hydrogen, Melis said.
"The cell culture can go back and forth like this many times," said Dr. Maria Ghirardi of NREL in
Colorado.
###
This server has been established by the University of California at Berkeley Public Information Office.
Copyright for all items on this server held by The Regents of the University of California. Thanks for your
interest in UC Berkeley.
More Press Releases
I
More Campus News and Events
UC Berkeley Home Page
Send comments to: [email protected]
30f3
2/25/00 2:28 PM
02/25/00 FRI 16:24 FAX
5
001
PRETMENT OF
Department of Energy
STATES OF PARKING
Washington, DC 20585
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY
AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: Roger Ballentine
From: DAN Reicher
Office:
Date:
1736
Fax Number: 456-6704
Fax Number: (202) 586-9260
Phone Number:
Phone:
(202) 586-9220
Number of pages (including cover): 5
Comments:
Printed with BOY ink on incycled paper
Bioenergy & Bioproducts Tax Incentives
President Clinton's FY 2001 Budget includes $976 million in tax incentives over 5 years and $2.1
billion over ten years to accelerate the development and use of bio-based technologies, which convert
crops, trees, and other "biomass" into a vast array of fuels and products. These tax credits support the
President's August 1999 Executive Order 13134 and Memorandum on Promoting Biobased Products
and Bioenergy, aimed at tripling U.S. use of biobased products and bioenergy by 2010. This initiative
will increase the viability of alternative energy sources, help meet environmental challenges like global
warming, support farm incomes, and diversify and strengthen the rural economy.
Cleaner Energy, Cleaner Environment. Bioenergy and bioproducts can dramatically reduce
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Since crops absorb carbon during growth,
their use for energy and other applications results in near zero net carbon release. Tripling our use of
bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 will reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 million
tons - the equivalent of taking over 70 million cars off the road.
New Economic Opportunities for a New Century. The goal of these tax incentives is to take
advantage of advances in farm, forestry, and other biological sciences that are making biomass a viable
competitor to fossil fuels as an energy source. These advances are fueling a revolution in the use of
biomass to make low polluting electricity by burning willows and switchgrass along with coal in
existing plants and by converting paper industry by-products into fuel gases. By creating high-tech
jobs and new economic opportunities, meeting the President's goal of tripling U.S. use of bioenergy
and bioproducts could add $15 billion to $20 billion in new income for farmers and many rural
communities.
Tax credits for electricity produced from biomass. This package of credits would:
-- Extend current "closed-loop" biomass credit. This proposal, which includes plants
and trees specifically. grown for use as biomass, extends for 2.5 years the current 1.5 cent
per kilowatt hour tax credit (adjusted for inflation after 1992), which covers facilities placed in
service before January 1, 2002.
-- Provide credits for "open loop" biomass facilities. This proposal expands the
definition of biomass eligible for the 1.5 cent tax credit to include certain forest-related
resources and agricultural and other sources for facilities placed in service from 2001 through
2005, and provides a 1.0 cent credit for electricity produced from 2001 through 2003 from
facilities placed in service prior to July 1, 1999.
-- Provide a credit for cofiring biomass and coal. This proposal adds a 0.5 cent per
kilowatt hour tax credit for electricity produced by cofiring biomass in coal plants from 2001
through 2005.
-- Provide credit for methane from landfills. This proposal adds a 1.5 cent per kilowatt
hour credit for electricity produced from landfills not subject to EPA's 1996 New Source
Performance Standards/Emissions Guidelines (NSPS/EG) and 1.0 cent per kilowatt hour for
landfills subject to NSPS/EG. Qualified facilities would be facilities placed in service after
December 31, 2000 and before January 1, 2006.
AP
Ann Gearan
776-9494
Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative
FY 2001 Budget
January 13, 2000
President Clinton's FY 2001 Budget includes a new initiative to accelerate the development and
use of bio-based technologies, which convert crops, trees, and other "biomass" into a vast array
of fuels and products. This initiative supports the President's August 1999 Executive Order
13134 and Memorandum on Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy, aimed at tripling U.S.
use of biobased products and bioenergy by 2010. The initiative provides an increase of more
than $240 million over the amounts available for FY 2000, with $49 million directed towards the
Department of Energy (DOE) and $194 million for stepped-up efforts at the Department of
Agriculture (USDA). This initiative will increase the viability of alternative energy sources, help
meet environmental challenges like global warming, support farm incomes, and diversify and
strengthen the rural economy.
The DOE goal for this initiative is making biomass a viable competitor to fossil fuels as an
energy source and chemical feedstock. Its efforts will be concentrated on developing "
biorefineries" -- integrated systems for processing feedstocks simultaneously into a variety of
products such as fuels, chemicals, and electricity. This will require increased collaboration
among DOE, USDA, NSF, and other agencies, and will support research partnerships linking
industry, university, and government research facilities selected on a competitive basis. The
work will build on fermentation, gasification, and other biomass-related activities currently
funded by the Energy Department.
Key areas of increased DOE activity will include:
Development of inexpensive cellulase systems to break down cellulose into low-cost
sugars for the production of bio-based chemicals and bioenergy. This will allow woody
and grassy crops and agricultural waste such as corn stalks to take the place of high-value
grain and food crops as biofuel feedstocks.
Renewable Bioproducts, using multi-disciplinary and university/industry partnerships to
develop and accelerate adoption of possible "leap-frog" technologies for converting
crops, trees and residues into chemical feedstocks and consumer products.
Biopower, promoting both the integration of biomass gasification systems with modern
gas-turbine/steam-turbine generation systems, and the co-firing of biomass with coal at
levels ranging from 5-15% biomass by heat value.
USDA's goals for the initiative are increasing the economic viability for farmers and foresters to
grow biomass products, developing new uses for biobased materials, and providing incentives to
use bioenergy. Key areas of increased USDA activity will include:
The Commodity Credit Corporation providing up to $100 million in FY 2000 and up to $150
million in FY 2001 and 2002 in incentive payments to ethanol and other bioenergy producers
to expand production of biobased fuels. Payments would be made on a portion of the
increase in agricultural commodities purchased for expanded bioenergy production, with
smaller and cooperatively-owned facilities receiving higher payment rates.
Expanded Forest Service research on faster-growing trees and the use of small-diameter trees
for commercial, biobased products.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service funding methane gas recovery pilots to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from livestock operations, providing a clean energy source to the
producer, and providing assistance to farmers that want to produce or market biobased
products.
Expanded Agricultural Research Service research (in association with DOE) to develop
biobased materials from commodities and bioproducts, and convert biomass to energy.
The Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service providing additional
competitive resources for research partnerships involving universities. This will complement
the new Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems announced by the Secretary of
Agriculture on January 10th.
Rural Development grants to rural electric cooperatives to develop pilot projects to
demonstrate the commercial viability of small-scale biomass fuel generation, grants for
technical assistance to cooperatives for processing and marketing biobased products, and
loans for facilities and operating capital for organizations engaged in biobased production
activities.
Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative
FY 2001 Budget
January 13, 2000
President Clinton's FY 2001 Budget includes a new initiative to accelerate the development and
use of bio-based technologies, which convert crops, trees, and other "biomass" into a vast array
of fuels and products. This initiative supports the President's August 1999 Executive Order
13134 and Memorandum on Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy, aimed at tripling U.S.
use of biobased products and bioenergy by 2010. The initiative provides an increase of more
than $240 million over the amounts available for FY 2000, with $49 million directed towards the
Department of Energy (DOE) and $193 million for stepped-up efforts at the Department of
Agriculture (USDA). This initiative will increase the viability of alternative energy sources, help
meet environmental challenges like global warming, support farm incomes, and diversify and
strengthen the rural economy.
The DOE goal for this initiative is making biomass a viable competitor to fossil fuels as an
energy source and chemical feedstock. Its efforts will be concentrated on developing" "
biorefineries" -- integrated systems for processing feedstocks simultaneously into a variety of
products such as fuels, chemicals, and electricity. This will require increased collaboration
among DOE, USDA, NSF, and other agencies, and will support research partnerships linking
industry, university, and government research facilities selected on a competitive basis. The
work will build on fermentation, gasification, and other biomass-related activities currently
funded by the Energy Department.
Key areas of increased DOE activity will include:
Development of inexpensive cellulase systems to break down cellulose into low-cost
sugars for the production of bio-based chemicals and bioenergy. This will allow woody
and grassy crops and agricultural waste such as corn stalks to take the place of high-value
grain and food crops as biofuel feedstocks.
Renewable Bioproducts, using multi-disciplinary and university/industry partnerships to
develop and accelerate adoption of possible "leap-frog" technologies for converting
crops, trees and residues into chemical feedstocks and consumer products.
Biopower, promoting both the integration of biomass gasification systems with modern
gas-turbine/steam-turbine generation systems, and the co-firing of biomass with coal at
levels ranging from 5-15% biomass by heat value.
USDA's goals for the initiative are increasing the economic viability for farmers and foresters to
grow biomass products, developing new uses for biobased materials, and providing incentives to
use bioenergy. Key areas of increased USDA activity will include:
Expanded Forest Service research on faster-growing trees and the use of small-diameter trees
for commercial, biobased products.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service funding methane gas recovery pilots to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from livestock operations, providing a clean energy source to the
producer, and providing assistance to farmers that want to produce or market biobased
products.
Expanded Agricultural Research Service research (in association with DOE) to develop
biobased materials from commodities and bioproducts, and convert biomass to energy.
The Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service providing additional
competitive resources for research partnerships involving universities. This will complement
the new Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems announced by the Secretary of
Agriculture on January 10th.
Rural Development grants to rural electric cooperatives to develop pilot projects to
demonstrate the commercial viability of small-scale biomass fuel generation, grants for
technical assistance to cooperatives for processing and marketing biobased products, and
loans for facilities and operating capital for organizations engaged in biobased production
activities.
The Commodity Credit Corporation providing up to $100 million in FY 2000 and up to $150
million in FY 2001 and 2002 in incentive payments to bioenergy producers to expand
production of biobased fuels. Payments would be made on a portion of the increase in
agricultural commodities purchased for expanded bioenergy production, with smaller and
cooperatively-owned facilities receiving higher payment rates.
The President's New Executive Order on
Bio-based Products and Bioenergy
August 12, 1999
The Executive Order issued by President Clinton today will coordinate Federal efforts to
accelerate the development of 21st century bio-based industries that use trees, crops, and
agricultural and forestry wastes to make fuels, chemicals, and electricity. Owing to recent
scientific advances, bioenergy and bioproducts have enormous potential to create new economic
opportunities for rural America, enhance U.S. energy security, and help meet environmental
challenges like global warming. In a separate Executive Memorandum, the President set a goal
of tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and bioenergy by 2010. Meeting this goal could create
$15 billion to $20 billion in new income for farmers and rural America, and reduce annual
greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equal to as much as 100 million metric tons of carbon
(MMTCE) - the equivalent of taking over 70 million cars off the road.
BIOMASS
Biomass is trees, crops, and agricultural and forestry wastes that can be used to make fuels,
chemicals, and electricity. Biomass is a clean, domestic, and renewable source of energy. It can
be used to fuel cars, power factories, and create a host of chemicals and other everyday products.
EXECUTIVE ORDER
Recent scientific advances in farm, forestry, and other biological sciences are making bioenergy
and bioproducts more technically feasible and more economically viable. Recent reports and
studies - including the just-released National Research Council report, "Biobased Industrial
Products" - have concluded that Federal support for research is essential to realizing the
economic and environmental potential of bio-based industries. Today's Executive Order acts on
this advice to create a powerful new research management team to focus Federal efforts with a
goal of tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010. Energy from biomass sources
currently accounts for about 3 percent of the total U.S. energy supply - mostly from wood and
wood waste.
This Executive Order :
Establishes a permanent council consisting of the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture, the
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, and the Director of the National Science
Foundation, and other agency heads to develop a detailed research program to be presented
annually as part of the annual Federal budget.
Instructs the council to review major agency regulations, incentives and programs to ensure that
they are being used effectively to promote the use of bioproducts and bioenergy. The
council's plan will be reviewed by an outside advisory group with representatives from bio-
based industries, farm and forestry sectors, universities, and environmental groups.
Directs DOE and USDA to establish a National Biobased Products and Bioenergy Coordination
Office to manage the preparation of interagency budgets and provide an easy point of entry
for anyone interested in Federal work in biobased products and bioenergy.
Today's Executive Order also builds on the Administration's record of strong and consistent
support for bio-based industries. This includes the Administration's electricity restructuring bill
introduced earlier this year requiring that 7.5 percent of all U.S. electricity come from renewable
resources by 2010; Executive Order 13101, signed in September 1998, instructing Federal
agencies to make use of biobased products; new proposed tax credits for bio-based electricity
production; and increased research funding for the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department
of Agriculture (USDA), and the National Science Foundation.
In a separate Executive Memorandum, the President instructed the Secretaries of Energy and
Agriculture to prepare a report within 120 days outlining and assessing options for modifying
existing DOE and USDA programs with a goal of tripling U.S. use of bio-based products and
bioenergy by 2010.
WHAT IS BEING DONE RIGHT NOW IN BIOENERGY AND BIOPRODUCTS
Clean bioenergy and bioproducts are very much here and now. Already DOE and USDA are
participating in partnerships on a number of major, breakthrough bioenergy and bioproducts
projects, including:
Biomass to Ethanol Demonstration Projects. Last fall BC International broke ground in
Jennings, Louisiana on the first commercial plant to produce ethanol from the cellulose in
agricultural waste - in this case sugar cane bagasse. A number of other demonstration
projects are under development to convert municipal solid waste to ethanol.
Biorefinery for Chemicals. Cargill Corporation, one of the largest privately held company in
the United States, has built a prototype biorefinery in Blair, Nebraska. This new facility will
use corn to produce a stream of chemical products and also a biodegradable polymer,
polylactic acid, used in making films, fibers, rigid materials and coatings.
Co-Firing Technologies. A number of projects are exploring ways to use biomass such as
switchgrass and short-rotation wood crops like willows to make electricity by cofiring them
with coal. Two of the most prominent projects - the Iowa Chariton Valley project and the
New York Salix project - will also investigate the technical and business aspects of biomass
gasification, where biomass is made into a fuel gas that can be used for heat or power
production.
ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF USING BIOMASS FOR ENERGY AND PRODUCTS
A robust bioenergy and bioproducts industry in the United States promises tremendous economic
benefits for biomass producers - including farmers and the forest products industry - energy
producers, chemical manufacturers, and the U.S. economy as a whole.
For rural America, a fast-growing bioenergy market will greatly increase the demand for energy
2
crops and for agricultural and forest residues, or wastes, of all types. Since the cost of
transporting the raw materials is high, most of the value-added work would occur in rural
communities, providing new revenue streams for farmers and cash-flow for rural economic
development. This means that good, high-technology jobs associated with producing biofuels
and chemicals can be added in rural communities helping ensure that they will be an integral part
of a prosperous 21st century American economy. By creating high-tech jobs and new economic
opportunities, meeting the President's goal of tripling U.S. use of bioenergy and bioproducts
could add $15 billion to $20 billion in new income for farmers and many rural communities.
Finally, as the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology highlight in their
new report - "Powerful Partnerships: The Federal Role in International Cooperation on Energy
Innovation" - investments in bioenergy technologies, infrastructures, and markets could increase
profitability for U.S. firms competing in global markets, while simultaneously providing for the
world's future energy needs in an environmentally sustainable way.
BIO-BASED TECHNOLOGIES HELP MEET ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
Substituting biomass for fossil fuels can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions that
contribute to global warming. Since biomass crops absorb carbon during growth, their use for
energy and other applications results in near zero net carbon release.
Meeting the President's goal of tripling our use of bioenergy and bioproducts by 2010 will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 100 MMCTE - the equivalent of taking more than 70
million cars off the road. Substituting for fossil fuels, bioenergy will also reduce emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and other pollutants.
Additionally, the deep-rooted plants commonly used for biomass - such as poplar, willow, and
switch grass - are helpful in controlling erosion, filtering chemicals from water runoff, and
slowing floodwaters.
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S FY2000 BUDGET ON BIOMASS
The President's FY 2000 budget request contains $242 million for investments in biomass
research, development and deployment, including:
Advanced Biomass Power and Fuels. Funding for DOE and USDA to continue developing,
testing, and demonstrating high-yield, low-cost biomass feedstocks; cofiring biomass with
coal to produce electricity; advanced technologies for biomass gasification using paper
industry by-products; and continued work on producing alternative fuels, such as ethanol,
from biomass.
National Biomass Partnership. Funding for DOE, USDA and other Federal agencies and
private partners to launch a national partnership to develop advanced integrated biomass
technologies.
The President has also proposed a package of biomass tax credits. The President proposes to
3
extend for 5 years the current 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit for electricity produced from
biomass. The proposal also expands the types of biomass eligible for the credit to include certain
forest-related, agricultural and other resources. Finally, the package includes a 1.0 cent per
kilowatt hour tax credit for electricity produced by cofiring biomass in coal plants.
To date, Congress has not only failed to enact these proposed new tax credits, but has terminated
the current 1.5 cent per kilowatt credit and cut the President's budget request by 14 percent.
###
4
01/12/00 WED 15:26 FAX 2027208254
FFAS
001
MIZEUR
TO:
PHONE
Expanding Production of Biobased Energy
FROM: John-4653
Expanding demand, rather than storing or cutting back production, is the most beneficial way to
restore balance to commodity markets. Because the potential to expand food or feed use is
limited, expanding the use of farm products in industrial uses offers an advantageous alternative.
For that reason, the President's budget proposals for strengthening the farm safety net will include
a new program to promote increased production of biobased fuels, including ethanol and soy-
based oil additives. The program will help enhance energy security by reducing fossil fuel imports;
reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and reduce fuel costs associated with Clean Air Act
requirements.
The program will have the dual effect of expanding industrial consumption of agricultural
commodities and adding to the supply of bioenergy and biobased lubricants in furtherance of the
goals set forth in the President's Executive Order on Biomass. Under the program, USDA's
Commodity Credit Corporation will provide incentive payments to bioenergy producers to
compensate them for a portion of their commodity purchases made to expand existing production
of bio-based fuels. I The program is designed to encourage the construction of new bioenergy
production facilities and full utilization of existing ones. Operationally, processors would request
from USDA authorization to participate in the program for a period of between 1 to 3 years.
USDA authorization would entitle processors to receive payments on the amount of additional
agricultural commodities purchased during the year for the production of bioenergy in excess of
the previous year's use. The request for authorization would include the firm's past and projected
commodity purchases. Upon the completion of each program year, participating companies
would be required to submit documentation of their actual purchases.
In order to have a meaningful effect on demand expansion, all processors would be eligible to
participate in the program. However, to target benefits, small- and cooperative-owned processing
facilities would receive higher payment rates.
Kevin Galvin
776 776-9494 9494
01/12/00 WED 15:27 FAX 2027208254
FFAS
0
002
Question:
Who would be eligible to participate in the program?
Answer:
Producers of bioenergy would participate in the program. Ir order to have a
meaningful effect on demand expansion, all processors would be eligible to
participate in the program. However, to target benefits, small- and cooperative-
owned processing facilities would receive higher payment rates.
Question:
What are the benefits of the program?
Answer:
The program will have the dual effect of expanding industrial consumption of
agricultural commodities and adding to the supply of bioenergy and biobased
lubricants in furtherance of the goals set forth in the President's Executive Order
on Biomass. The program will help enhance energy security by reducing fossil fuel
imports; reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and reducing fuel costs associated
with Clean Air Act requirements.
Question:
When would the program begin?
Answer:
USDA will implement the program under the authority of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act. USDA will issue regulations through the normal
rulemaking procedures and the program will be implemented as soon as possible
beginning in FY 2000.
Question:
How much will the program cost?
Answer:
The costs of the program could vary, depending on how successful the program is
in stimulating demand for bio-based energy products. Assuming the program is
moderately successful, USDA estimates the cost at about $100 million in its first
year, and $150 million in FY 2001 and FY 2002.
Henry C. Kelly
01/07/2000 07:11:00 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Roger S. Ballentine/WHO/EOP@EOP. Rosina M. Bierbaum/OSTP/EOP@EOP, Samuel F.
Baldwin/OSTP/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: EO on biomass: these are best fixes I can think of
Background:
A. get the title right:
Executive Order on Bio-based Products and Bioenergy
B. Definitions of biomass from the EO
Section 7. Definitions.
For the purposes of this order
(a)
The term "biomass" means any organic matter that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis (excluding old-growth timber), including dedicated energy crops and trees,
agricultural food and feed crop residues, aquatic plants, wood and wood residues, animal
wastes, and other waste materials.
This doesn't specifically rule out corn but its hard to read it in.
C. The argument is over net energy of bioenergy: the newest corn ethanol plants may provide a
slight net fuel saving but the average small plant (encouraged by the new program) is probably
much less efficient.
D. suggested language changes
Suggest following edit of sentences claiming environmental/energy benefits: The program will encourage
investment in technology which can will help enhance energy security by reducing fossil fuel imports;
reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and reduce fuel costs associated with Clean Air Act requirements."
The program will have the dual effect of expanding industrial consumption of agricultural commodities and
encouraging investments in technology that could adding to the supply of bioenergy and biobased prod
ucts lubricants in furtherance of the goals set forth in the President's Executive order on Biomass-B
iobased Products and Bioeenergy.
ID:
JAN 07'00 18:01 No. 010 P.01
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
/
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503
DATE: 1/7/00
TIME: 6:15pm
Natural Resource Division
ENVIRONMENT BRANCH
NEOB/RM: 8026
TO: Roger Ballentine
X 61736
FROM:
R.Fairweather
N.Shapiro
K.Neyland
G.Foster
X
R.Tuccillo
C.M.Abendroth
P.Barr
Z.Church
C.Dennis
D.Gaymon
N.Glick
Fax #202-395-5836
Phone #202-395-6827
Message:
Biobosed Energy Announcement
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: 5
ID:
JAN 07'00
18:01 No 010 P.02
Ron, Danill,
WIRSTON dratt tel
Noah
Beier
1/6
Expanding Production of Biobased Energy
For possible
announcement
Expanding demand, rather than storing or cutting back production, is the most beneficial way to
tomemous
!
restorc balance to commodity markets. Because the potential to expand food or feed use is
limited, expanding the use of farm products in industrial uses offers an advantageous alternative.
For that reason, the President's budget proposals for strengthening the farm safety net will include
Comments
$150 million for a new program to promote increased production of biobased fuels, including
by
ethanol and soy-based oil additives. The program will help enhance energy security by reducing
6:00
fossil fuel imports; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and reduce fuel costs associated with Clean
Air Act requirements.
The program will have the dual effect of expanding industrial consumption of agricultural
commodities and adding to the supply of bioenergy and biobased lubricants in furtherance of the
goals set forth in the President's Executive Order on Biomass. Under the program, USDA's
Commodity Credit Corporation will provide incentive payments to bioenergy producers to
compensate them for a portion of their commodity purchases made to expand existing production
of bio-based fuels. The program is designed to encourage the construction of new bioenergy
production facilities and full utilization of existing ones Operationally, processors would request
from USDA authorization to participate in the program for a period of between 1 to 5 years.
USDA authorization would entitle processors 10 receive payments on the amount of additional
agricultural commodities purchased during the year for the production of biocnergy in excess of
the previous year's use. The request for authorization would include the firm's past and projected
commodity purchases. Upon the completion of each program year, participating companies
would be required 10 submit documentation of their actual purchases.
In order to target benefits toward smaller plants but still have a meaningful effect OD demand
expansion, all processors would be eligible to participate in the program. However, small- and
cooperative-owned processing facilities would receive higher payment rates.
:
MARK WEATHERLY
:
395-4941 FAX
:
:
ID:
JAN 07'00
18:01 No 010 P.03
Question:
Who would be eligible to participate in the program?
Answer.
Producers of bioenergy would participate in the program to order to target
benefits toward smaller producers but still have a meaningful effect on demand
expansion, all bioenergy producers would be eligible to participate in the program
However, small- and cooperative-owned processing facilities would receive higher
payment rates.
Question:
What are the benefits of the program?
Answer:
Thelprogram will have the dual effect of expanding industrial consumption of
agricultural commodities and adding to the supply of bioenergy and biobased
lubricants in furtherance of the goals act forth in the President's Executive Order
on Biomass. The program will help enhance energy security by reducing fossil fuel
imports; reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and reducing fuel COSTS associated
with Clean Air Act requirements
Question:
When would the program begin?
Answer:
USDA will implement the program under the authority of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act The program will be implemented as 8002 as possible,
after regulations are issued through the normal rulemaking procedures.
Question:
How much will the program cost?
Answer.
The COSTS of the program could vary, depending on how successful the program is
in stimulating demand for bio-based energy products. Assuming the program is
moderately successful. USDA estimates the cost at about 575 million in its first
year, and less in subsequent years.
ID:
JAN 07'00
18:02 No 010 P.04
πeit"
Collins'
piece done
scient araths
Expanding Industrial Use of Corn and Sorbeans
ago(?) (?)
Proposal: Expanding demand, rather than storing or cutting back production, is the most
beneficial way to restore balance to commodity markets. Because the potential to expand food
demand is limited, expanding the use of farm products in industrial uses offers an advaniageous
alternative. This program would provide 1 bushel of com or soybeans to ethanol plants or
soybean processors (who convert com to ethanol and ethanol based fuel additives and soybeans
to soydiesel, soybased diesel and fuel additives, and soybased lubricants and greases) for every 2.5
busbels they buy. in excess of their previous year I purchases, for a five-year period from 2000 to
2004. (A higher payment rate would be used for small plants, as discussed below.) The base year
for calculation of increased purchases would be 1999. A five-year program is proposed to be of
sufficient duration to encourage the construction of new processing capacity, with the dual effect
of removing more com and soybeans from the market and adding to the supply of bioenergy and
biobased lubricants in furtherance of the goals set forth in the President's recent Executive Order
promoting the use of bioenergy and biobased products.
Operationally, processors would request from USDA authorization to participate in the program
for from 1 to 5 years. USDA authorization would entitle processors to receive certificates on the
amount of additional com purchases in excess of the previous year's use for each year of
requested participation in the program Certificate value would be based on the lower of market
price or CCC loan rate at the processing plant location Certificates would be redeemed for
CCC-owned corn or soybeans (or possibly for cash). The request for authorization would include
the firm's projected increases in anticipated com or soybean purchases, in each year of program
participation, for purposes of producing the bioenergy or biobased lubricant products cited in the
previous paragraph USDA would authorize access to certificates for one program year at a time.
Processing firms could draw OD certificates authorized for the current program year on a
quarterly interval based on com or soybean purchases projected under the approved plan Upon
the completion of each program year, participating processors would be required to submit
documentation of additional corn or soybeans purchased (as compared to the previous year) and
processed into the approved bioenergy and biobased lubricant products. Eased on end of year
documentation, processing firms could obtain additional certificates to which 1bair processing
volume entitled them, or would reimburse USDA for certificates obtained but not utilized in that
production year.
Targeting Options: Large cthanol plants and/or Large firms could be excluded from the
program. One possible size limit could be based existing tax provisions. That is, plants with
annual processing capacity of over 30 million gallons of ethanol (12 million bushels of corn) could
be excluded. Similarly large soybean processing plants and/or large firms could also be excluded
from the program. However that size limit would sharply reduce the ability of the program to
lower crop surpluses, since 81 parcent of the Nation's ethanol capacity is in plants of over 30
million bushels of annual capacity and more than 80 percent of the Nation's soybean processing
capacity is in large scale plants or owned by large firms.
In order to target benefits toward smaller plants but still have a meaningful effect on demand
expansion by including the larger plants in the program an alternative targeting approach is to
ID:
JAN
07'00
18:03 No 010 P.05
provide large plants with 1 bushel for every 2.5 they purchase and small plants with 1 bushel for
every 1,5 bushels they purchase.
At this point, the Federal government owns only very small amounts of com and soybeans. Com
and soybeans provided under the certificate program would have to be acquired through
forfeiture or purchased by CCC.
Precedent: As one of the numerous initiatives to assist farmers in economic crisis in 1986.
USDA issued certificates to ethanol producers that entitled them to one bushel of com for every
2.5 busbels they removed from the market and converted to ethanol. The program cost $54
million and an estimated 30 million bushels of cora were removed.
Current Rationale: The industrial market has the best potential within the United States to
absorb surplus grain, as food and feed uses have little prospect for substantive expansion. By
being multiyear, the program would help alter the competitive structure of the market, improving
farmers economic position in the future. In addition, supporting ethanol, biodiesel, and biobased
lubricants will have the following benefits: 1) Enhanced energy security by reducing fossil fuel
imports. 2) Greenhouse gas emission reductions. 3)Reduced COST for fuel in meeting Clean Air
Act requirements. This cost reduction would help many states, especially California, interested in
reducing use of MTBE as a gasoline oxygenate because of its adverse effects on ground water
quality but worried about higher ethanol costs. In addition, the lower corn costs would help
offset increased refinery costs of gasoline to be blended with ethanol when Phase II of the Clean
Air Act is implemented on January 1, 2000. 4) And, support of expanded production capacity
for bioenergy and biobased products as called for in the President's executive order.
Expected Effects: There currently is unused ethanol production capacity in the United States of
about 315 million gallons annually, equivalent to 126 million bushels of annual com utilization
The proportion of unused capacity is believed to be the same for large and for small cthanol
plants. The proposed program would reduce processors marginal com costs for expanded
production by 29 percent (and by 40 percent for small plants under the targeting approach).
Federal program COSI estimates for coro are ranged with the following two scenarios, which
assume all ethanol producers are eligible 10 participate.
Scenario 1: baseline. The current USDA baseline assumes little expansion in cthanol by 2004.
Under this assumption, the program would increase com demand for ethanol plants in 2000 by an
estimated 126 million bushels, thus fully using existing capacity, but use could possibly be limited
by large ethanol supplies currently on hand. in subsequent years, there would be little added
production qualifying for certificates in existing plants. In 2000, then, using a CCC payment rate
of 1 bushel for each 2.5 bushels purchased, processing plants would purchase 89.5 million bushels
of com and USDA would provide funding for purchase of another 36.5 million bushels, at a cost
of about $69 million, assuming com is procured at the CCC loan rate of $1.89 per bushel.
Additional cthanol production capacity of 123 million gallons per year currently is under
construction, all plants of under 30 million gallons annual capacity. Assuming that this added
capacity is phased in during 2001-2005, that could add another $67 million in costs, bringing the
S-year CCC costs for com ethanol to $136 million There currently are about 35 million gallons
ID:
JAN 07'00
18:03 No 010 P.06
of unised soydiesel production capacity, equivalent to additional use of 25 million bushels of
soybeans; little expanded use is expected.
Under the small finn targeting option, costs would be slightly higher. Small plants would use 24
million of the 126 million added com use resulting in 8 FY 2000 cost to the CCC of $75 million.
Assuming future additions to capacity are similarly divided between large and small plants, the
S-year costs would total $147 million
Scenario 2: MTBE phase out Demand for ethanol could expand substantially if the EPA's Blue
Ribbon Panel recommendation to phase down MTBE for use as an oxygenate in gasoline is
implemented and if oxygenate requirements in the Clean Air Act are retained. If ethanol were to
become the primary oxygenate additive, the U.S. ethanol production would have to more than
double from 1.4 billion gallons to 3.3 billion gallons annually by 2004 to theet projected market
demand The additional ethanol production would utilize an increasing amount of com as it is
phased in between 2000 and 2004, with up to 760 million additional bushels of com used annually
by 2004. Assuming 1 bushel paid out by CCC for every 2.5 bushels purchased, the 5-year CCC
cost of providing certificates worth 29 percent of the value of the com could be as unich as $417
million, with corn sequisition cost at the CCC loan rate of $1.89 per bushel, with all cthanol
processors participating. With a higher payment rate for small plants, the 5-year cost would be
$447 million
The increase in demand for soydiesel is likely to be moderate, from a small base, resulting in very
small CCC costs. A 1-percent additive market and a 20-percent blend market are the most likely
uses for soydiesel. Adoption of soybased lubricants for certain uses in agriculture, food
processing, recreational boating, and truck and rail transportation could add to demand for these
hubricants, and to soybean demand by processors. Soybased lubricants currently are being tested
in applications in each of these areas
DRAFT
Expanding Production of Biobased Energy
Expanding demand, rather than storing or cutting back production, is the most beneficial way to
restore balance to commodity markets. Because the potential to expand food or feed use is
limited, expanding the use of farm products in industrial uses offers an advantageous alternative.
For that reason, the President's budget proposals for strengthening the farm safety net will
include $150 million for a new program to promote increased production of biobased fuels,
including ethanol and soy-based oil additives. The program will help enhance energy security by
reducing fossil fuel imports; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and reduce fuel costs associated
?
with Clean Air Act requirements.
The program will have the dual effect of expanding industrial consumption of agricultural
commodities and adding to the supply of bioenergy and biobased lubricants in furtherance of the
goals set forth in the President#s Executive Order on Biomass. Under the program, USDA's
Commodity Credit Corporation will provide incentive payments to bioenergy producers to
compensate them for a portion of their commodity purchases made to expand existing production
of bio-based fuels. The program is designed to encourage the construction of new bioenergy
production facilities and full utilization of existing ones. Operationally, processors would
request from USDA authorization to participate in the program for a period of between 1 to 5
years. USDA authorization would entitle processors to receive payments on the amount of
additional agricultural commodities purchased during the year for the production of bioenergy in
excess of the previous year7s use. The request for authorization would include the firm>s past
and projected commodity purchases. Upon the completion of each program year, participating
companies would be required to submit documentation of their actual purchases.
In order to target benefits toward smaller plants but still have a meaningful effect on demand
expansion, all processors would be eligible to participate in the program. However, small- and
cooperative-owned processing facilities would receive higher payment rates.
Question:
Who would be eligible to participate in the program?
Answer:
Producers of bioenergy would participate in the program. In order to target
benefits toward smaller producers but still have a meaningful effect on demand
expansion, all bioenergy producers would be eligible to participate in the
program. However, small- and cooperative-owned processing facilities would
receive higher payment rates.
Question:
What are the benefits of the program?
Answer:
The program will have the dual effect of expanding industrial consumption of
agricultural commodities and adding to the supply of bioenergy and biobased
lubricants in furtherance of the goals set forth in the President=s Executive Order
on Biomass. The program will help enhance energy security by reducing fossil
fuel imports; reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and reducing fuel costs
associated with Clean Air Act requirements.
Question:
When would the program begin?
Answer:
USDA will implement the program under the authority of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act. The program will be implemented as soon as possible,
after regulations are issued through the normal rulemaking procedures.
Question:
How much will the program cost?
Answer:
The costs of the program could vary, depending on how successful the program is
in stimulating demand for bio-based energy products. Assuming the program is
moderately successful, USDA estimates the cost at about $75 million in its first
year, and less in subsequent years.
12/01/99 07:20 FAX
0
001
-Office of Fuels Development
Office of Transportation Technologies
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
Date:
12/1/1999
To:
Roger Ballantine-c/o Angie Miser
Tel #:
Fax #:
456-1736
From:
John Ferrell
Location:
Tel #:
(202)586-6745
Fax #:
(202) 586-9815
Number of Pages (including this Cover Sheet):
7
MESSAGE:
Dan Reicher's "DRAFT" presentation for visioning meeting.
12/01/99 07:20 FAX
002
DOE Bioenergy Vision Review
and Adoption Meeting
Dan Reicher
Assistant Secretary
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
December 1, 1999
Vision Targets
AND
J
HAVE
By 2010, increase bioenergy use 3-fold over
today's levels
By 2020, increase bioenergy use by 10-fold
over today's levels
By 2050, increase bioenergy use by another
3-fold over 2020 levels
1
2/01/99 07:20 FAX
003
Vision Targets
U.S. Demand for Energy and Feedstocks
(quads)
200
150
100
50
0
Today
2020
2050
The
2020
Fossil fuel sources
Other renewable source
Bioenergy from biobased resources
What Would a 10-fold
Increase Mean?
U.S. would vastly increase its self-
sufficiency and reduce our reliance on fossil
fuels
U.S. would use 30 quads of bioenergy
which is equivalent to replacing all U.S.
crude oil imports
U.S. could rely on bioenergy to satisfy
virtually all incremental growth in demand
for energy and feedstocks through 2050
2
12/01/99 07:20 FAX
004
Vision Assumptions
In the face of escalating U.S. and world
energy demand, both renewable and
nonrenewable resources will be needed in
the 20-year time frame
Growth in renewables will be required in
the 20-year time frame, even though
opportunities for improvements in energy
efficiency will be broadly exploited by
energy producers and by end-use sectors
A Call to Action
The realization of the Vision will
require action on 3 fronts
Scientific and technological innovation across
multiple disciplines
Private investment in markets and
infrastructure
Development of supportive government
policies
3
The Challenge
TECHNOLOGIES
Feedsincks
Gesenus
Chemicals
Fuels
Solid
Liquid
Fuels
Fuels
Policias
Electricity
Bioproducis
Heat
MARKETS
/01/99 07:20 FAX
006
Options for Next Steps
Selectively choose a larger reviewer group
Have reviewer group become executive
steering committee to solicit and alter vision
accordingly
Hold regional meetings
Place announcement in Federal Registrar
Place vision on bioenergy website for
public review
FY 2000: $6 Million Plan
$0.4 million for administration
$0.4 million for outreach and
communication
$5.2 million for competitive solicitation
- $0.2 million for EE broad-based solicitation
- $0.5 million for analysis
- $4.5 million for R&D
5
2/01/99 07:21 FAX
007
Solicitation Information
Target Dates
- Release solicitation by Christmas
- Make awards by second quarter
Potential Areas
- resource assessment
- XX
6
White House Climate Change Task Force
734 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
November 30, 1999
Re: Bioenergy Event
Dear Roger,
Attached is the agenda and list of attendees at tomorrow's bioenergy event.
This is the 4th of a series of bioenergy industry outreach meetings led by DOE with the new
EO, DOE has engaged USDA and their stateholders in the meeting.
You should make brief remarks focussing on the President's commitment and the importance
of this partnership with industry.
Also attached FYI is the briefing Reicher gave to OMB last week on FY2001 bioenergy
overtarget request.
Sincerely,
spk
Bioenergy Vision Review and Adoption Meeting
December 1, 1999
U.S. Capitol, Room SC-5
Washington, D.C.
10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Draft Agenda
10:00 - 10:30
Opening & Welcome
Dan Reicher, DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy
Miley Gonzalez, USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
White House Representative
10:30 - 10:45
Introductory remarks from attendees
10:45 - 11:00
Present Revised Bioenergy Vision- Dan Reicher
11:00 - 12:15
Vision Discussion
12:15 - 1:15
Working Lunch
Executive Order signing ceremony video
Update on Legislation- Congressional staffers
1:15 - 1:45
Next Steps for Vision
1:45 - 3:15
Develop Roadmap Topics and Timing
Denise Swink- Overview of process
3:15 - 3:30
FY 2000 and FY 01 Budget & Solicitation Update - Dan Reicher and Miley Gonzalez
3:30 - 4:00
Wrap Up & Adjourn - Dan Reicher
86/67/TT
MON 19:05 FAX
002
DOE Bioenergy Vision Review and Adoption Meeting
Attendee List
November 24, 1999
Invitees
Registered
DOE Person To
Follow-Up
Martin L. Andreas.
Bob
Archer Daniels Midland Company
202-586-9232
Sam Baldwin,
NSTC Agency Representative
202-456-6073
Earl Beaver.
Yes
Practical Sustainability
314-694-6087
Mitch Beaver.
Bob
Illinois Department of Commerce
217-785-2009
Tanya Blalock,
Ray
Southern Company
404-506-0492
[email protected]
David Boron,
DOE/OIT
202-586-0080
James Bostic.
Ray
Georgia-Pacific
404-652-5250
[email protected]
Richard Bradshaw.
DOE
202-586-4898
Joe Bryson,
EPA
202-564-9631
Ron Buckhalt
Yes
USDA
202-260-1074
Stan Bull,
Yes
NREL
303-275-3030
1
003
Gil Gilliland.
ORNL
423-574-9920
David Glassner.
Yes
NREL
303-384-6820
Phil Goldberg
FETC
yes
I. Miley Gonzalez,
USDA
202-720-5923
Robert Harris.
Yes
DOE/EE
202-586-0484
Fred Heineken
NSF
Richard Herrett,
Yes
Doug
ARI
202-544-5534
Robert Horn.
Ray
Detroit Edison
202-347-8420
[email protected]
Robert Horsch.
Yes
Monsanto
603-821-3460
Patricia Hus,
Ray
NIPSCO
219-647-5263
[email protected]
Jack Huttner,
Yes
Richard/John
Genencor
716-256-5272
Lynn Jensen,
Doug
National Com Growers Association
605-847-4580
Lennart Johansson,
Ray
STM
734-995-1755
[email protected]
3
004
Edan Prabhu.
Yes
Ray
Reflective Energies
949-380-4899
[email protected]
Curt Ranger,
DTE Biomass Energy Services. Inc.
734-913-2085
Anda Ray
No
TVA
Delmar Raymond,
No
Weyerhaeuser Company
253-924-6850
Valerie Reed.
DOE/OTT
202-586-5618
Dan Reicher
Yes
DOE/FE
202-586-9220
Don Richardson,
Yes
DOE
202-586-4591
Martha Rollins.
Yes
TVA
423-751-4712
Doug Rundell.
??
BP/Amoco
630-420-4923
Jennifer Ryan,
Yes
Energetics. Inc.
202-479-2748 X108
Anthony Schafthauser.
Yes
ORNL
423-574-4826
Jeff Seabright.
Dan
White House Climate Change Task Force
202-395-2329
Arthur E. Smith, Jr.,
Ray
NIPSCO
219-647-5252
[email protected]
5
005
Gerald Caughman.
Yes
Trigen
704-525-5819
Marge Cavanaugh
Bob
NSF
Gerard Closser.
No
Doug
Champion International Corporation
203-358-6497
Raymond Costello,
DOE/OPT
202-586-4898
Chris Demeter.
No
Antares Group
301-731-1900
Gregory Dilworth.
DOE/OSC
301-903-2873
Robert Dixon,
Ray
DOE/OPT
202-586-9275
[email protected]
Robert Dorsch,
Bob
DuPont
302-695-7600
Mark Dungan,
Yes
United Soybean Board
314-579-1580
David Durham
Yes
Doug
United Soybean Board
660-398-4378
Doug Faulkner.
Yes
DOE/OIT
202-586-2119
John Ferrell,
Yes
DOE/OTT
202-586-6745
Stephen Gatto,
Yes
BC International
781-461-5700
2
006
Henry Kelly.
Bob
OSTP/EOP
202-456-6033
Kelly Kirkpatrick.
OSTP/EOP
202-456-6037
Karen Larsen,
USDA
202-720-8787
Steven Lee,
Yes
DOE
202-586-9273
David Leiter,
Richard
DOE
202-586-9220
James McLaren,
Yes
Inverizon International
314-530-6943
Richard Moorer,
Yes
DOE/OTT
202-586-5350
David Morris.
Ray
Institute for Local Self Reliance
612-379-3815
[email protected]
Edward Neuhauser.
Ray
Niagara Mohawk Power Company
315-428-3355
[email protected]
Norman Olson.
Yes
ASERTTI Representative
515-294-9331
Bill Parks.
DOE/OIT
202-586-9232
Robert Perciasepe.
EPA
202-260-7400
Gary Poehlin
Bob
NSF
4
FAX
007
Denise Swink.
Yes
DOE/OIT
202-586-9232
Jill Long Thompson.
Bob
USDA
202-720-4581
Joe Visalli,
Yes
New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority
518-862-1090 X3205
Carol Werner.
Yes
Bob
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
202-662-1881
Bill White
Bob
EPA
202-260-4724
James Woolsey,
Yes
Shea and Gardner
202-828-2056
Lynn Wright,
Yes
ORNL
423-574-7378
Jennifer Yezak-Molen.
Yes
Bob
USDA/REE
202-690-0878
Total Invited: 71
29
6
FY 2001 Overtarget Budget
Request for the
Biobased Products and
Bioenergy Initiative
Briefing to the
Office of Management and Budget
November 12, 1999
The Goal
To triple U.S. use of
biobased products and
bioenergy by 2010
President Clinton
Executive Memorandum
August 12, 1999
The Vision
"U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of carbohydrates."
David Morris, Institute for Local Self Reliance
"Moving from an economy based on geology to one
based on biology."
USDA
"Changes that will have effects comparable to those of
the Industrial Revolution are now beginning."
Phillip Abelson, Science Magazine
The Benefits
Spur our rural economy
Reduce our nation's dependence on foreign
oil supply
Improve our environment
Enhance forest productivity
Integrate bioenergy and biobased products
efforts to better position the U.S. to meet
the President's tripling goal
Key Federal Partners
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Environmental Protection Agency
National Science Foundation
Bioenergy Program Status
Vision Process
Draft industry-vision document prepared
Technology roadmap development planned
Vision review and adoption meeting scheduled for 12/1/99
Related Industry Visions and Roadmaps Completed
Biobased products: "Plant/Crop-based Renewable Resources
2020"
Forest products industry: "Agenda 2020"
Early Stages of Implementing Executive Order
Interagency Council on Biobased Products & Bioenergy
Advisory Committee
Coordination Office
Political Status
Administration Support
Executive Order 13134- "Developing and
Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy"
and Executive Memorandum
Bipartisan Legislative Support
3 biomass bills introduced this Congress
S. 935 - Senator Lugar (R-IN)
H.R. 2827 - Representative Ewing (R-IL)
H.R. 2819 - Representative Udall (D-CO)
NRC Study "Biobased Industrial Products:
Research and Commercialization Priorities"
Broad-based constituency support
Biobased Products
and Bioenergy
Sustainable raw materials from:
Crops
Trees
Residues
Converted into:
Fuels
Power
Chemicals
Building materials and consumer goods
Success Factors
TECHNOLOGIES
Progress
on
Bioenergy
POLICIES
MARKETS
Key Challenges
Increasing farm and forest income
Securing a reliable source of competitively-
priced feedstocks
Reducing feedstock conversion and
manufacturing costs and developing new
production, delivery, and processing systems
Selecting viable technologies for commercial
demonstration
Ensuring a sound science and technology base
for these systems
Effective technology transfer
Strategy Highlights
To meet the President's tripling goal:
Integrate government/industry efforts for
bioenergy on RD&D
Benefits of Integration
Dramatic acceleration of technology
Leveraging of opportunities
FY 2001 Funding Request
($ millions)
Activity
Research &
Demonstration &
Analysis
Outreach &
Totals
Areas
Development
Commercialization
Education
DOE
USDA
DOE
USDA
DOE
USDA
DOE
USDA
DOE
USDA
Feedstocks
33.1
55.9
0.5
3.6
0.5
1.2
0
1.0
34.1
61.7
Conversion
83.9
14.0
24.9
0
2.0
0.3
1.9
0
112.7
14.3
Products
1.5
3.5
0
10.2
0
0.7
2.0
1.7
3.5
16.1
Totals
118.5
73.4
25.4
13.8
2.5
2.2
3.9
27
150.3
92.1
TOTAL: 242.4
FY 2001 Funding Requirements for
Biobased Products & Bioenergy Initiative
($ millions)
Activity
Research &
Demonstration &
Analysis
Outreach &
Totals
Areas
Development
Commercialization
Education
DOE
USDA
DOE
USDA
DOE
USDA
DOE
USDA
DOE
USDA
Feedstocks
5.0
10.4
0
19.7
0
1.5
0
0.3
5.0
31.9
Conversion
30.0
7.2
14.0
10.7
20
1.4
2.0
0.4
48.0
19.7
Products
0
3.1
0
13.6
0
2.3
0
4.4
0
23.4
Totals
35.0
20.7
14.0
44.0
20
5.2
2.0
5.1
53.0
75.0
TOTAL: 128.0
DOE & USDA FY 2000 . 01
Bioenergy and Biobased Products
Budget Information
250
200
150
$ Millions
DOE
USDA
100
Over
target
50
0
FY 00 (Actual)
FY 01 Request
FY 01 Request +
Over target
How Will Funds Be Used?
Develop science and technology base to
support the biorefinery concept
Feedstocks
Conversion
Biobased Products
Facilitate commercial deployment of
biorefineries and associated technologies
Outreach and Education
Feedstocks
Research and Development
Fundamental plant genomics
Plant biotechnology
Resource-efficient feedstock production and
delivery processes
Demonstration and Commercialization
Significant new acreage for dedicated energy
crops
Processes to recover added-value products
Developing new cropping systems
Conversion
Research and Development
Biocatalyst development
Gas conditioning for power/chemicals
Separations
Composite matrices
Demonstration and Commercialization
Biomass and black liquor gasification
integrated gasification combined cycle
Bridge to corn ethanol
Co-firing and distributed power systems
Molded fiber products
Products
Research and Development
New high-value products linked more to basic
plant structure
Demonstration and Commercialization
Demonstrate new and substitution products
Biorefinery concept
Analysis & Outreach
Analysis
Integrate predictive models
Conduct market analyses
Develop supply and demand projections
Outreach and Education
Use newest information technology
Rapid dissemination of information
Build on existing DOE/USDA regional programs
Promote multi-disciplinary programs in universities
Raise consumer awareness
DOE Exemplary Milestones by 2005
Milestones without Initiative
Milestones with Initiative
Biomass sugars cost 6 cents/lb
Biomass sugars cost 5 cents/lb
Ethanol production cost is $1.15
Ethanol production cost is $0.85
per gallon, resulting in annual
per gallon, allowing cellulosic
use of 280 million gallons of
ethanol use in the oxygenate and
cellulosic ethanol in the
octane markets to increase to 360
oxygenate and octane markets
million gallons
Replace 3 GWe of coal-based
Replace 4 GWe coal-based
generating capacity with
generating capacity with biomass
biomass co-firing
co-firing
Demonstrate successful
Replace 250 MWe of generating
integration of biomass
capacity in the forest products
gasification and gas turbine
industry with biomass
power systems
gasification
Build 1 gasification plant
Build 1-2 gasification plants
Increase dedicated energy crops
by 500,000 acres
DOE Exemplary Milestones for 2010
Milestones without Initiative
Milestones with Initiative
Biomass sugars cost 5 cents
Biomass sugars cost 4 cents per
per pound
pound
Ethanol production cost is
Ethanol production cost is $0.73
$1.02 per gallon, with ethanol
per gallon, allowing celluolosic
use in the oxygenate and
ethanol use in the oxygenate and
octane markets reaching 2.2
octane markets, and in E85 (in
billion gallons per year
the Midwest) to increase to 3
billion gallons per year
Replace 4 GWe of coal-based
Replace 8 GWe of coal-based
generating capacity with
generating capacity with biomass
biomass co-firing
co-firing
Replace 150 MWe of
Replace 2 GWe of generating
generating capacity in the
capacity in the forest products
forest products industry with
industry with biomass
biomass gasification
gasification
Build 4 gasification plants
Build 10-12 gasification plants
DOE Exemplary Milestones for 2020
10% of chemical building blocks from
plant-derived renewables by 2020- a five-
fold increase from today (Plant/Crop-based
Renewable Resources 2020)
Increase growth rates for trees by 2020 by 4
times current rates (Agenda 2020)
Initiative Priorities
Use existing programs to accelerate
commercialization of technologies
Lower cost of production and processing of
feedstock
Develop new crops and new products from
existing crops
Facilitate and expand Federal Purchase of
bioenergy and biobased products
Ongoing economic analysis to measure
success and develop priorities
USDA Exemplary Milestones
Kenaf
Growers of commodity crops in Texas, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico,
Florida and as far north as Kentucky will have an alternative crop, kenaf, that
converts more greehouse gases to plant fiber than trees or any other suitable
paper-making crop. This will reduce global warming, reduce chemicals used
in paper-making and increase income to farmers.
Milestones without Initiative
Milestones with Initiative
2005
Build one demonstration plant
Build two commercial plants
for converting 30,000 tons/year
for converting 120,000 tons
of kenaf from about 3500 acres
per year of kenaf from about
into paper and 15,000 tons per
28,000 acres into paper and
year of kenaf lignin into glue
coproducts including glue,
and fertilizer
fertilizer, and others
2010
Reduce the burning of lignin
Reduce the burning of lignin
(production of greenhouse
(production of greenhouse
gases) as a result of paper
gases) as a result of paper
production by 5%
production by 20% of kenaf
paper development
USDA Exemplary Milestones
Biobased Materials
Develop biocatalytic process to convert agricultural residues
and byproducts and low-value starches into valuable
substitutes for imported gums, biodegradable polymers,
coatings and adhesives. Over 6 billion pounds of petroleum-
based adhesives are produced in the U.S. each year.
With initiative in 2005:
Could penetrate 5% of the food and industrial gums market and 1%
of the petroleum-based adhesives and provide $70 million in
sales and the same in reduced imports.
With initiative in 2010:
Could penetrate 10% if the food and industrial gums market and
10% of the petroleum-based adhesives market which would
provide $680 million in new sales and reduced imports and
increase revenues to thousands of farmers and create hundreds of
jobs in the food and industrial products manufacturing sector
USDA Exemplary Milestones
Agricultural Materials to Biofuels
Over 450 billion pounds of corn stover are produced in the U.S. each year.
Stover contains valuable phytochemicals, including chlosterol lowering
phytosterols and other natural products. Extracting 2% of these
chemicals would mean 10 billion pounds of products for human and
animal foods, pharmaceutical intermediates, and industrial chemicals.
With the initiative in 2005:
Create technology leading to utilization of 5% of available stover biomass for
production of $10 million worth of phytochemicals and $10 million worth of
polysaccharide based paint and coatings ingredients thus increasing farm and
forest revenue by millions of dollars and creating scores of new jobs.
With initiative in 2010:
Create technology leading to utilization of 20 % of available stover biomass,
$30 million of phytochemicals, $100 million of industrial paints and coatings,
$50 million in reduced imports, tens of millions of increased farm revenue
and hundreds of new jobs. Also, a savings of $100 million in savings from
improved efficiencies in using non-engineered microorganisms.
Initiative Highlights
The initiative is designed to reshape and build on ongoing
programs in USDA and DOE
USDA & DOE have strong complementary programs in
crop productivity, harvesting, and product conversion. The
initiative suggests increasing bioproduct and biofuel
feedstock research funding, from $55.9M to $66.3M
Existing USDA programs and authorities can be expanded
and modified to support technology transfer, demonstration
& commercialization activities from $3.6M to $23.3M
DOE has strong programs in electric and cellulosic
chemical biofuel conversion. The initiative suggests
increasing DOE cellulosic conversion funding from $78M
to $108M. USDA programs would pursue supporting work
in cellulosic and other conversion increasing from $14M to
$21.2M
Supplementary Briefing
4 Detailed examples of how to meet the 3X goal:
Reducing energy feedstock costs while
increasing farm income
Reducing the cost of converting biomass to
sugars and ethanol
Reducing the cost of converting biomass to
electricity
Convert raw materials into competitive
biobased products
Example 1: Reducing Energy
Feedstock Costs While Increasing Farm Income
Limited amounts of biomass feedstock, such as urban mill wood
residue, is available at $10-20 per ton, but most biomass crops and
agricultural waste costs $30-$50 per ton
Competitive bioproducts require biomass delivered at prices in the
range of $20-$40 per ton
Achieving this goal would require
Increasing the productivity of biomass crops from 4 dry tons
per acre per year to 7.5 dry tons per acre per year
Cutting the cost of harvesting and delivering residues from
$20/ton to $17/ton with new equipment
It will be very difficult to reach these goals in less than 15-20 years
with the base program; with enhanced funding, goals can be met in
10 years
Funding Strategy
Increased funding in the area of energy feedstock
development allows for:
Initiating efforts to apply plant biotechnological
methodology to increase feedstock yields and study co-
production of higher value products within the
feedstock
The increase in demonstration acreage of dedicated
energy crops to 500,000 acres by 2005
Example 2: Reducing the Cost of
Converting Biomass to Sugars and Ethanol
The cost of delivering a pound of carbon in gasoline
from petroleum could range from 8-18 cents, while
the cost of delivering a pound of fuel carbon in
ethanol from biomass is 28-38 cents
Biomass conversion must be reduced to about 18
cents per pound for carbon to be competitive as a
chemical feedstock, assuming feedstock goals are met
Biomass conversion must be reduced to 8 cents per
pound of carbon to compete with gasoline
Under existing funding, the needed cost reduction
will be achieved in 15-20 years; under the new
funding, the cost goals can be met in under 10 years
The cost of carbon: Research
targets and market values
Current
$0.20
Targets
$0.18
Competes as biorefinery
$ per pound of carbon
$0.16
feedstock
$0.14
$0.12
Competes as fuel additive
$0.10
$0.08
Competes with gasoline
$0.06
Accelerated
$0.04
Targets
$0.02
$0.00
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Funding Strategy
Increased funding in the area of sugar cost reduction
allows for:
By 2010, design and create 60 new enzymes suitable for
biobased chemical processes
By 2010, ethanol production costs are 73 cents/gallon,
allowing ethanol use in oxygenates, octane, and E85
markets to increase to $3 billion gallons/year
Example 3: Reducing the Cost of
Converting Biomass to Electricity
Electricity produced from biomass now costs 50-
75% more than conventional electricity
Reducing costs requires improved gasification of
biomass and high efficiency turbines (or fuel cells)
compatible with these gases
Under current funding levels, and assuming the
feedstock goals are met, biomass electricity will
not be competitive outside of niche markets until
2015. With the new funding, biomass may be
competitive in broad markets by 2010
Funding Strategy
Increased funding in the area of electricity
production allows for:
The replacement of 4 GWe of coal-based generating
capacity with biomass cofiring
The replacement of 250 MWe of generating capacity in
the forest products industry with biomass gasification
20 MW of distributed generation of village power
systems in operation
Example 4: Convert Raw Materials
into Competitive Biobased Products
As a replacement for petroleum, biobased
industrial products, harvesting, handling, and
processing costs remain high
Raw materials are bulky and processing must
occur near the "farm gate" or forestry source
Quantifying the broad-ranging and important
positive energy and environmental benefits
Funding Strategy
Increased funding in the area of developing
competitive industrial biobased products allow for:
Improved competition
Development new crops and cropping systems
Commercialization of new uses for existing
commodities
Reduction in imports by $1 billion a year
TALKING POINTS FOR THE INDUSTRY BRIEFING
ON
BIOBASED PRODUCTS AND BIOENERGY INITIATIVE
FOR
ROGER BALLANTINE
DECEMBER 1, 1999
4:30 pm
OEOB 472
Welcome to Washington. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for
joining us today to discuss our proposed Administration Biobased Products and
Bioenergy Initiative.
Your expertise and advice on how we proceed is critical to the success of this R&D
initiative.
As you know, the President signed a Biobased Products and Bioenergy executive order
and memorandum on August 12, 1999 to accelerate the development of these 21st
century technologies to bring bio-based technologies from farms, forests and labs
to the marketplace. I think I saw most of you at the signing ceremony - we
appreciated your support then!
The President has set a very challenging goal of tripling America's use of bioenergy and
bio-based products by 2010. This goals has the potential of $20 billion a year in
new income for farmers and rural communities, while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by as much as 100 million tons a year - the equivalent of taking more
than 70 million cars off of the road.
Now it's time for us to figure out which steps we should consider taking to achieve this
goal. Since the EO signing, the WHCCTF and OSTP have been working very
closely with the Federal agencies - DOE and USDA in particular as well as EPA
and NSF to develop a set of crisp goals for a R&D strategy with a competitive,
peer-reviewed process to accomplish the goal set forth by the President.
Today we would like to share our proposed Biobased Products and Bioenergy Initiative
with you and candidly hear from you about any of its strengths, weaknesses or
errors of omission. With that, I will turn the table over to Henry Kelly to outline
the specifics of this initiative.
Biobased Products and
Bioenergy Initiative
Industry Briefing
December 1, 1999
The Goal
To triple U.S. use of
biobased products and
bioenergy by 2010
President Clinton
Executive Memorandum
August 12, 1999
The Benefits
Spur our rural economy
Reduce our nation's dependence on foreign
oil supply
Improve our environment
Enhance forest productivity
Integrate bioenergy and biobased products
efforts to better position the U.S. to meet
the President's tripling goal
Key Federal Partners
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Environmental Protection Agency
National Science Foundation
Bioenergy Program Status
Vision Process
Draft industry-vision document prepared
Technology roadmap development planned
Vision review and adoption meeting scheduled for 12/1/99
Related Industry Visions and Roadmaps Completed
Biobased products: Plant/Crop-based Renewable Resources
2020"
Forest products industry: "Agenda 2020"
Early Stages of Implementing Executive Order
Interagency Council on Biobased Products & Bioenergy
Advisory Committee
Coordination Office
Political Status
Administration Support
Executive Order 13134- "Developing and
Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy"
and Executive Memorandum
Bipartisan Legislative Support
3 biomass bills introduced this Congress
S. 935 - Senator Lugar (R-IN)
H.R. 2827 - Representative Ewing (R-IL)
H.R. 2819 - Representative Udall (D-CO)
NRC Study "Biobased Industrial Products:
Research and Commercialization Priorities"
Broad-based constituency support
Biobased Products
and Bioenergy
Sustainable raw materials from:
Crops
Trees
Residues
Converted into:
Fuels
Power
Chemicals
Building materials and consumer goods
Success Factors
TECHNOLOGIES
Progress
on
Bioenergy
POLICIES
MARKETS
Key Challenges
Increasing farm and forest income
Securing a reliable source of competitively-
priced feedstocks
Reducing feedstock conversion and
manufacturing costs and developing new
production, delivery and processing systems
Selecting viable technologies for commercial
demonstration
Ensuring a sound science and technology base
for these systems
Effective technology transfer
Feedstocks
Research and Development
Fundamental plant genomics
Plant biotechnology
Resource-efficient feedstock production and
delivery processes
Demonstration and Commercialization
Significant new acreage for dedicated energy
crops
Processes to recover added-value products
Developing new cropping systems
Conversion
Research and Development
Biocatalyst development
Gas conditioning for power/chemicals
Separations
Composite matrices
Demonstration and Commercialization
Biomass and black liquor gasification
integrated gasification combined cycle
Bridge to corn ethanol
Co-firing and distributed power systems
Molded fiber products
Products
Research and Development
New high-value products linked more to
basic plant structure
Demonstration and Commercialization
Demonstrate new and substitution
products
Biorefinery concept
Analysis & Outreach
Analysis
Integrate predictive models
Conduct market analyses
Develop supply and demand projections
Outreach and Education
Use newest information technology
Rapid dissemination of information
Build on existing DOE/USDA regional programs
Promote multi-disciplinary programs in universities
Raise consumer awareness
DOE Exemplary Milestones by 2005
Milestones without Initiative
Milestones with Initiative
Biomass sugars cost 6 cents/lb
Biomass sugars cost 5 cents/lb
Ethanol production cost is $1.15
Ethanol production cost is $0.85
per gallon, resulting in annual
per gallon, allowing cellulosic
use of 280 million gallons 6f
ethanol use in the oxygenate and
cellulosic ethanol in the
octane markets to increase to 360
oxygenate and octane markets
million gallons
Replace 3 GWe of coal-based
Replace 4 GWe coal-based
generating capacity with
generating capacity with biomass
biomass co-firing
co-firing
Demonstrate successful
Replace 250 MWe of generating
integration of biomass
capacity in the forest products
gasification and gas turbine
industry with biomass
power systems
gasification
Build 1 gasification plant
Build 1-2 gasification plants
Increase dedicated energy crops
by 500,000 acres
DOE Exemplary Milestones for 2010
Milestones without Initiative
Milestones with Initiative
Biomass sugars cost 5 cents
Biomass sugars cost 4 cents per
per pound
pound
Ethanol production cost is
Ethanol production cost is $0.73
$1.02 per gallon, with ethanol
per gallon, allowing celluolosic
use in the oxygenate and
ethanol use in the oxygenate and
octane markets reaching 2.2
octane markets, and in E85 (in
billion gallons per year
the Midwest) to increase to 3
billion gallons per year
Replace 4 GWe of coal-based
Replace 8 GWe of coal-based
generating capacity with
generating capacity with biomass
biomass co-firing
co-firing
Replace 150 MWe of
Replace 2 GWe of generating
generating capacity in the
capacity in the forest products
forest products industry with
industry with biomass
biomass gasification
gasification
Build 4 gasification plants
Build 10-12 gasification plants
DOE Exemplary Milestones for 2020
10% of chemical building blocks from
plant-derived renewables by 2020- a
five-fold increase from today
(Plant/Crop-based Renewable
Resources 2020)
Increase growth rates for trees by
2020 by 4 times current rates (Agenda
2020)
Initiative Priorities
Use existing programs to accelerate
commercialization of technologies
Lower cost of production and processing of
feedstock
Develop new crops and new products from
existing crops
Facilitate and expand Federal Purchase of
bioenergy and biobased products
Ongoing economic analysis to measure
success and develop priorities
USDA Exemplary Milestones
Kenaf
Growers of commodity crops in Texas, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico,
Florida and as far north as Kentucky will have an alternative crop, kenaf, that
converts more greehouse gases to plant fiber than trees or any other suitable
paper-making crop. This will reduce global warming, reduce chemicals used
in paper-making and increase income to farmers.
Milestones without Initiative
Milestones with Initiative
2005
Build one demonstration plant
Build two commercial plants
for converting 30,000 tons/year
for converting 120,000 tons
of kenaf from about 3500 acres
per year of kenaf from about
into paper and 15,000 tons per
28,000 acres into paper and
year of kenaf lignin into glue
coproducts including glue,
and fertilizer
fertilizer, and others
2010
Reduce the burning of lignin
Reduce the burning of lignin
(production of greenhouse
(production of greenhouse
gases) as a result of paper
gases) as a result of paper
production by 5%
production by 20% of kenaf
paper development
USDA Exemplary Milestones
Biobased Materials
Develop biocatalytic process to convert agricultural residues
and byproducts and low-value starches into valuable
substitutes for imported gums, biodegradable polymers,
coatings and adhesives. Over 6 billion pounds of petroleum-
based adhesives are produced in the U.S. each year.
With initiative in 2005:
Could penetrate 5% of the food and industrial gums market and 1%
of the petroleum-based adhesives and provide $70million in
sales and the same in reduced imports.
With initiative in 2010:
Could penetrate 10% if the food and industrial gums market and
10% of the petroleum-based adhesives market which would
provide $680 million in new sales and reduced imports and
increase revenues to thousands of farmers and create hundreds of
jobs in the food and industrial products manufacturing sector
USDA Exemplary Milestones
Agricultural Materials to Biofuels
Over 450 billion pounds of corn stover are produced in the U.S. each year.
Stover contains valuable phytochemicals, including chlosterol lowering
phytosterols and other natural products. Extracting 2% of these
chemicals would mean 10 billion pounds of products for human and
animal foods, pharmaceutical intermediates, and industrial chemicals.
With the initiative in 2005:
Create technology leading to utilization of 5% of available stover biomass for
production of $10 million worth ofphytochemicals and $10 million worth of
polysaccharide based paint and coatings ingredients thus increasing farm and
forest revenue by millions of dollars and creating scores of new jobs.
With initiative in 2010:
Create technology leading to utilization of 20 % of available stover biomass,
$30 million of phytochemicals, $100 million of industrial paints and coatings,
$50 million in reduced imports, tens of millions of increased farm revenue
and hundreds of new jobs. Also, a savings of $100 million in savings from
improved efficiencies in using non-engineered microorganisms.
4 Detailed examples of how to meet the 3X goal:
Reducing energy feedstock costs while
increasing farm income
Reducing the cost of converting biomass to
sugars and ethanol
Reducing the cost of converting biomass to
electricity
Convert raw materials into competitive
biobased products
Example 1: Reducing Energy
Feedstock Costs While Increasing Farm Income
Limited amounts of biomass feedstock, such as urban mill wood
residue, is available at $10-20 per ton, but most biomass crops and
agricultural waste costs $30-850 per ton
Competitive bioproducts require biomass delivered at prices in the
range of $20-$40 per ton
Achieving this goal would require
Increasing the productivity of biomass crops from 4 dry tons
per acre per year to 7.5 dry tons per acre per year
Cutting the cost of harvesting and delivering residues from
$20/ton to $17/ton with new equipment
It will be very difficult to reach these goals in less than 15-20 years
with the base program; with enhanced funding, goals can be met in
10 years
Funding Strategy
Increased funding in the area of energy
feedstock development allows for:
Initiating efforts to apply plant biotechnological
methodology to increase feedstock yields and
study co-production of higher value products
within the feedstock
The increase in demonstration acreage of
dedicated energy crops to 500,000 acres by
2005
Example 2: Reducing the Cost of
Converting Biomass to Sugars and Ethanol
The cost of delivering a pound of carbon in gasoline
from petroleum could range from 8-18 cents, while
the cost of delivering a pound of fuel carbon in
ethanol from biomass is 28-38 cents
Biomass conversion must be reduced to about 18
cents per pound for carbon to be competitive as a
chemical feedstock, assuming feedstock goals are met
Biomass conversion must be reduced to 8 cents per
pound of carbon to compete with gasoline
Under existing funding, the needed cost reduction
will be achieved in 15-20 years; under the new
funding, the cost goals can be met in under 10 years
The cost of carbon: Research
targets and market values
Curren
$0.20
Targets
$0.18
Competes as biorefinery
$ per pound of carbon
$0.16
feedstock
$0.14
$0.12
Competes as fuel additive
$0.10
*
$0.08
Competes with gasoline
$0.06
Accelerated
$0.04
Targets
$0.02
$0.00
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Funding Strategy
Increased funding in the area of sugar cost reduction
allows for:
By 2010, design and create 60 new enzymes suitable for
biobased chemical processes
By 2010, ethanol production costs are 73 cents/gallon,
allowing ethanol use in oxygenates, octane, and E85
markets to increase to $3 billion gallons/year
Example 3: Reducing the Cost of
Converting Biomass to Electricity
Electricity produced from biomass now costs 50-75%
more than conventional electricity
Reducing costs requires improved gasification of
biomass and high efficiency turbines (or fuel cells)
compatible with these gases
Under current funding levels, and assuming the
feedstock goals are met, biomass electricity will not
be competitive outside of niche markets until 2015.
With the new funding, biomass may be competitive
in broad markets by 2010
Funding Strategy
Increased funding in the area of electricity
production allows for:
The replacement of 4 GWe of coal-based
generating capacity with biomass cofiring
The replacement of 250 MWe of generating
capacity in the forest products industry with
biomass gasification
20 MW of distributed generation of village
power systems in operation
Example 4: Convert Raw Materials
into Competitive Biobased Products
As a replacement for petroleum, biobased
industrial products harvesting, handling, and
processing costs remain high
Raw materials are bulky and processing must
occur near the "farm gate" or forestry source
Quantifying the broad-ranging and important
positive energy and environmental benefits
Funding Strategy
Increased funding in the area of developing
competitive industrial biobased products allow for:
Improved competition
Development new crops and cropping systems
Commercialization of new uses for existing
commodities
Reduction in imports by $1 billion a year
NOV-30-1999 17:17
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
2024790229 P.01/12
ENERGETICS
501 School Street, S.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20024
PHONE (202) 479-2748
FAX (202) 479-0229
Date:
November 30, 1999
To:
Roger Ballentine
c/o Angie Miser
Fax Number: 456-1737
From:
Jennifer Ryan
Attached is a DRAFT copy of Dan Reicher's presentation for DOE's Bioenergy Vision
meeting tomorrow.
12Pages (including cover)
TOTAL
2024790229 P.02/12
OFFA
TES
DOE Bioenergy Vision Review
SCHOOL STREET
and Adoption Meeting
ENERGETICS
Dan Reicher
Assistant Secretary
Office of Energy Efficiency and
NOV-30-1999 17:17
Renewable Energy
December 1, 1999
1
2024790229 P.03/12
Vision Targets
By 2010, increase bioenergy use 3-fold over
today's levels
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
By 2020, increase bioenergy use by 10-fold
over today's levels
By 2050, increase bioenergy use by another
NOV-30-1999 17:18
3-fold over 2020 levels
I
2024790229 P.04/12
Vision Targets
U.S. demand for energy
and feedstocks (quads)
200
150
100
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
50
O
Today
2020
2050
NOV-30-1999 17:18
Fossil fuel sources
Other renewable source
Bioenergy from biobased resources
1
What Would a 10-fold
2024790229 P.05/12
Increase Mean?
U.S. would vastly increase its self-
sufficiency and reduce our reliance on fossil
fuels
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
U.S. would use 30 quads of bioenergy
which is equivalent to replacing all U.S.
crude oil imports
U.S. could rely on bioenergy to satisfy
NOV-30-1999 17:18
virtually all incremental growth in demand
for energy and feedstocks through 2050
I
2024790229 P.06/12
Vision Assumptions
In the face of escalating U.S. and world
energy demand, both renewable and
nonrenewable resources will be needed in
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
the 20-year time frame
Growth in renewables will be required in
the 20-year time frame, even though
opportunities for improvements in energy
NOV-30-1999 17:18
efficiency will be broadly exploited by
energy producers and by end-use sectors
1
2024790229 P.07/12
A Call to Action
The realization of the Vision will
require action on 3 fronts
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
Scientific and technological innovation across
multiple disciplines
Private investment in markets and
infrastructure
Development of supportive government
NOV-30-1999 17:19
policies
1
2024790229 P.08/12
The Challenge
TECHNOLOGIES
Feedstocks
Gaseous
Chemicals
Fuels
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
Solid
Liquid
Fuels
Fuels
Pollolis
Electricity
Bioproducts
Heat
MARKETS
NOV-30-1999 17:19
NOV-30-1999 17:19
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
2024790229 P.09/12
TOP
I
2024790229 P.10/12
Options for Next Steps
Selectively choose a larger reviewer group
Have reviewer group become executive
steering committee to solicit and alter vision
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
accordingly
Hold regional meetings
Place announcement in Federal Registrar
Place vision on bioenergy website for
NOV-30-1999 17:20
public review
1
Si
1
2024790229 P.11/12
FY 2000: $6 Million Plan
$0.6 million for administration
$0.4 million for outreach and communication
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
$5.0 million for competitive solicitation
- $0.2 million for EE broad-based solicitation
- $0.5 million for analysis
NOV-30-1999 17:20
- $4.3 million for R&D
1
2024790229 P.12/12
Solicitation Information
TOTAL P.12
Target Dates
- EE solicitation was released in November
- Release bioenergy solicitation 1st quarter 2000
- Make awards by 2ⁿᵈ quarter 2000
ENERGETICS SCHOOL STREET
Potential Topic Areas
- EE broad-based solicitation
Outreach
- Analytical
NOV-30-1999 17:20
Potential for bioenergy
- R&D
Integrated systems with multiple products
Nov-30-99 06:08P Climate Change Task Force
P.01
JEFF'S ITINERARY
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE CONFERENCE
Houston, Texas - - Nov. 30-Dec. 2, 1999
TUESDAY, NOV. 30, 1999
LV:
WASH/NATIONAL @ 7 p.m. VIA CO 1461
AR:
HOUSTON @ 9:19 p.m.
THURSDAY, DEC. 2, 1999
I.V:
HOUSTON @ 7:48 a.m. VIA CO 1450
AR:
WASH/NATIONAL @ 11:40 a.m.
Lodging and Meeting Site
Adam's Mark Hotel
2900 Briar Park Drive
713/978-7400
713/735-2739 fax
Pager # 1-888-369-4934
Clinton to Seek Using Farm Products in Lieu of Fossil Fuel
By MATTHEW L. WALD
biotechnology development at Du
the President for environmental Ini-
clothing fibers. Unlike plastics, it
WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 - Presi-
Pont.
tiatives.
breaks down completely in a com-
dent Clinton will announce a long.
"We need to go from black gold to
Vice President Al Gore, who has
post heap.
term effort on Thursday to help re-
green gold," Mr. Dorsch said.
emphasized Federal promotion of
"It could be made from any kind of
place coal, oil, natural gas and ura-
Du Pont is working on an im-
new technology as well as environ-
organic biomass," said Robert R.
nium with farm products, crop
proved polyester based on natural
mentalism and support for farmers,
sugars instead of petroleum, and is
said today in a telephone interview
Parmelee, president of bioscience di-
wastes and trees to make things as
that the initiative would "help insure
vision of Cargill.
diverse as electricity, pharmaceuti-
hoping that with Federal research
cals and car fuel and forks.
money and coordination, the price of
that the agricultural economy is part
Polylactic acid is now made from
sugar from corn kernels and other
In an executive order, the Presi-
of the new economy."
such sugars will fall.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1999
The York
dent will set a goal of working with
The Vice President said that the
high-value products, but with a few
Other companies that have been
various industries to triple the
effort did not yet involve allocating
technical advances it could be made
working with the Government over
amount of energy generated from
money but that some money would
from parts of the plant with lower
such products by 2010. The order,
be redirected from other programs,
value or none at all, like corn stalks,
White House officials said, will also
mostly in the Energy and Agricul-
Mr. Parmelee said.
instruct the Secretaries of Agricul-
'We need to go from
ture Departments. More Federal at-
"Over time, if you really want to
ture and Energy and the Administra-
tention could encourage use of natu-
make this big, then raw material
tor of the Environmental Protection
Agency to write plans to coordinate
black gold to green
ral materials, he said, and would be
costs are going to have to come
"a very significant step forward."
down," he said.
research, create markets and take
Past efforts to use natural materi-
gold, a Du Pont
als have been stymied in part by
The Government is already in-
other steps to nurture "renewable
technologies."
falling prices for oil and natural gas.
volved in many biomass projects,
The Administration also plans to
official says.
But proponents of the idea say the
but the participants see greater po-
develop proposals for research
drive to reduce pollution and techno-
tential. For example, the Energy De-
logical advances in biology and ma-
partment contributed $1.3 million to
grants and tax credits to promote
such technologies.
terials science will help them.
pay for equipment at the Northern
the last nine months contend that
Administration officials predict
Biomass now accounts for about 3
Indiana Power Company's Bailly
motor fuels, solvents and electricity
that developing more uses for agri-
percent of national energy use, in-
Generating Station in Burns Harbor
can be made from natural materials,
cultural products will result in $15
cluding processes as simple as home
to mix wood chips with the coal. The
known as biomass, on a cost-effec-
billion to $20 billion in additional
heating with wood.
result was less nitrogen oxide, which
tive basis, with a reduction in pollu-
farm income by 2010 and less use of
Some agricultural processing
tion. The discussions have included
contributes to smog, less sulfur diox-
imported oil.
companies expect big markets if
major companies in agriculture,
ide, which makes acid rain, and less
"Essentially all of society in the
they can make new products that
chemicals, oil, natural gas and for-
carbon dioxide, which is believed to
last 100 years has been built on petro-
have environmental benefits, at
estry, as well as genetic engineering
equal cost. Cargill Inc., for example,
cause climate change. But the com-
leum as the energy and raw materi-
and other high-tech companies.
has a venture with Dow Chemical to
pany would like to try a different
al," said a participant in the effort,
"We're looking at taking things we
Dr. Robert R. Dorsch, director of
produce polylactic acid, a polymer
system of using wood, cooking it into
currently just throw away, making
that can be used instead of petro-
a gas that can be burned at very high
them profitable, fighting global
leum-based products like polysty-
efficiencies in a turbine, said Arthur
warming and cleaning the environ-
rene in insulated cups, and polyethyl-
E. Smith, Jr., the environmental offi-
SUMMER FUN FOR CITY CHILDREN:
ment at the same time," said Roger
ene in soft drink bottles. The acid can
cer at Nisource, which is Northern
SUPPORT THE FRESH AIR FUND
Ballentine, the deputy assistant to
also be used for garbage bags or for
Indiana's corporate parent.
Errors Turn Fund-Raising Coup Into Giuliani Embarrassment
By DAN BARRY
celli of New Jersey, at which Mr.
alongside President Clinton, Vice
and ABBY GOODNOUGH
they all listed the same address, that
Kushner was publicly thanked by
President Gore and other prominent
The aides handling Mayor Ru-
President Clinton, the event's hon-
of Mr. Kushner's office complex in
Democrats. And when the President
Florham Park, N.J.
dolph W. Giuliani's fund-raising op-
ored guest.
appointed 10 people to the United
But the Mayor's aides soon real-
erations bragged of scoring a coup in
For the Giuliani event later in
States Holocaust Memorial Council
ized that the event was fraught with
March when a New Jersey develop-
March, Mr. Kushner's brother, Mur-
in December, Mr. Kushner was
technical problems. They immedi-
er, best known for his ties to Presi-
ray Kushner, wrote out four checks
among those so honored.
ately sent letters to many of the
dent Clinton and other national Dem-
from four different companies - but
But Mr. Kushner also has a friend-
party's guests, asking them to write
ocrats, agreed to hold a fund-raising
all in his own name - to the Giuliani
ly relationship with Bruce Teitel-
a letter back that would stipulate
event for the Republican Mayor.
campaign, for a total of $8,000.
baum, the Mayor's chief fund-raiser
how much of their donation was ear-
Making the fund-raising coup all
Fred Wertheimer, the president of
and former chief of staff; both men
marked for a primary, and how
the more delicious, the $100,000
Democracy 21, a nonprofit public-
are active in Jewish-American af-
much for a general election, as re-
raised at the party would probably
policy organization based in Wash-
fairs. "He's a friend of mine," Mr.
quired by law.
be spent thwarting the First Lady,
ington, said that those contributions
Teitelbaum said. "I asked him if he
None of those requests were an-
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Mayor's
violated a basic law regarding Fed-
would support the Mayor, and he
swered. The Mayor's aides said they
likely opponent in the race for the
eral campaigns: no one can contrib-
said he would."
did not know whether those letters
United States Senate in 2000.
ute a total of more than $2,000 to any
Mr. Rosenthal said that Mr.
were all sent to the address of the
Since then, however, the sweet
candidate during an election cycle.
"No, he can't do that," Mr. Wer-
Kushner "has significant involve-
Florham Park office complex.
taste of that event has soured a bit.
Eventually, the aides said, they
Because of technical mistakes and
theimer said. "He can't keep making
had no choice but to return $43,000 to
violations of the Federal election
contributions under different profes-
the donors because the checks did
THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1999
laws, the Mayor's fund-raising com-
sional positions. Anyone who raises
money at the Federal level knows an
Violations of basic
not include the required information.
mittee has returned $57,000, more
They also returned $14,000 because
than half the total raised at the
individual can't give more than
March party held by the New Jersey
$2,000 for a race."
campaign finance
Murray Kushner and three others,
including Charles Kushner's wife
developer, Charles J. Kushner.
Mr. Kushner referred questions
Aides to the Mayor said that the
about the Giuliani event to Peter
rules force the return
and sister, had contributed money
York
Rosenthal, a public-relations consult-
beyond the $2,000 cap allowed by
return of contributions reflected
of most donations.
campaign-finance laws.
nothing more than the minor mis-
ant, who described the developer as
Mr. Teitelbaum declined to com-
takes so frequently made by political
"embarrassed." He acknowledged
ment on the Kushner event. But offi-
donors and campaigns when trying
that the errors were highly unusual,
cials who insisted on anonymity said
to comply with Federal election
given Mr. Kushner's experience in
laws. For example, one official said,
fund-raising.
ment in New York City, both owning
that the campaign had done nothing
many of the checks were returned
"It's embarrassing, but it's not
property and in a variety of philan-
wrong and everything right; aides
because they did not specify whether
complicated," Mr. Rosenthal said.
thropic activities, and he thinks the
sought to address the problems as
the contribution was being designat-
Mayor has done a terrific job and
soon as they surfaced, and returned
The employee "who was in charge of
supports his goals for the future."
any check that was in question.
ed for a primary or a general elec-
this, from an administrative point of
tion, as required.
view, really messed up."
In late March, Mr. Giuliani left
They also said that such matters
The aides and a spokesman for Mr.
These gaffes marred what other-
City Hall for Livingston, N.J., where
are routine, particularly in cam-
Kushner also said that the donors
wise would have been a gleeful Giuli-
he gave a talk at the Joseph Kushner
paigns that handle millions of dol-
were correcting the errors, and that
ani raid into Clinton territory.
Hebrew Academy, a school that Mr.
lars. (The Giuliani exploratory cam-
Charles Kushner, 45, heads the
Kushner and his siblings established
paign has raised more than $3 mil-
the Giuliani exploratory campaign
for the Senate would eventually get
in honor of their late father. The
lion SO far.) For example, they re-
Kushner Companies, a family-owned
cently returned a donation after
the contributions back.
real-estate empire that owns and
event segued into a fund-raising
learning that it came from a son of
But the mistakes made in collect-
manages more than 10,000 apart-
event in the Mayor's honor, attended
ment units in New York, New Jersey,
by various friends and relatives of
Paul Castellano, the late leader of
ing the money at the New Jersey
party are so elementary as to be
Pennsylvania and Florida. But he
the Kushners.
the Gambino crime family.
Mr. Rosenthal said that while Mr.
stunning, considering that it was put
has also been one of the go-to people
The event appeared to be among
together by Mr. Kushner, a veteran
Kushner regretted' the mishap, it
for the Democratic National Com-
the most successful of the year for
fund-raiser who has organized big-
would not stop him from organizing
mittee when it wants to raise money
the Mayor. It took more than 25
money political events for Mr. Clin-
more fund-raising events. Asked
in New Jersey - as evidenced by the
pages in a campaign-contribution re-
ton, Vice President Al Gore and oth-
whether the longtime supporter of
Torricelli event in Newark, which
port filed by Friends of Giuliani with
Mr. Clinton would also hold a fund-
ers. In March, for example, he helped
raised $2.15 million.
the Federal Election Commission to
to arrange a lavish fund-raiser in
raiser for the First Lady, he an-
Mr. Kushner possesses many pho-
list all the donors who gave at least
Newark for Senator Robert G. Torri-
swered: "We'll say that's a rhetori-
tographs showing him standing
$1,000, and often $2,000. To a person,
cal question, right?"