25x’25

The 25x’25 Alliance has long promoted the conviction that untapped business opportunities in renewable energy hold the promise of addressing increasing energy costs and decreasing farm incomes, all while offering a boost to the rural economy, enhanced national energy security and a cleaner environment. U.S. farmers have captured some of the renewable energy opportunities available to them, notably those associated with ethanol production. But there is vast potential in other renewable technologies that have yet to be developed and German farmers are demonstrating what can come from using those technologies and establishing a wider connection between renewable energy and agriculture.

This unfulfilled potential and the path to maximizing agriculture’s role in achieving a clean energy future is the subject of a new report, Beyond Biofuels: Renewable Energy Opportunities for U.S. Farmers, which served as the basis for a transatlantic roundtable discussion held in Washington, D.C. this week by the Heinrich Böll Foundation-North America, in cooperation with 25x’25.

At the roundtable, the report’s authors explored the intersection of renewable energy and agriculture on both sides of the Atlantic, providing an overview of renewable energy on farms and the drivers for deployment in Germany and the United States. Presentations showed that the U.S. agriculture sector has traditionally lagged behind Germany in its ability to capitalize on the benefits of renewables. For example, while U.S. farmers are earning revenue from wind and biomass systems, it’s at levels far less than German farmers (Germany has approximately 30 times more biogas digesters than the United States). While U.S. farms have invested heavily in ethanol for transportation, farm-based renewable electricity is much more commonplace in Germany than here. The contrasts highlight a significant gap between what is possible on U.S. farms and what’s been implemented thus far.

Among ways the authors say the U.S. agriculture industry could draw from experiences in Germany is to universally advocate for a national comprehensive climate and energy strategy. The development of a strong national renewable energy policy in Germany has been supported by a broad coalition that has included agriculture lobbies, rural communities and farming cooperatives. German lobbies such as the Federation of German Farmers explicitly acknowledge, among other things, the economic dividends of renewable investments to justify aggressively incorporating renewable energy into the agriculture sector. The U.S. farm lobby, by contrast, has generally supported policies targeting biofuels derived from crops, but has been ambivalent when it comes to wider legislation that could optimize solutions from the land to address the nation’s energy and climate problems.

The report also calls on rural communities to develop strong stakeholder networks, noting that German farms have a network of actors, such as community members and cooperatives, that have helped make them successful “energy farmers.” The profit that flows to farmers from renewable energy activities also benefits local communities, which in turn garners local support for renewable energy projects. In Germany, rural communities have established their own renewable energy goals. In contrast, the report says, similar mobilization of rural communities in support of farm-based renewable energy has not been as widespread in the United States, but could be very effective.

The report also calls upon the diversification of U.S. feedstocks used for biofuels. In recent years, biofuel policy in Germany has been aimed mainly at biodiesel, while U.S. policy primarily targets ethanol. In order for the United States to have a more sustainable biofuels industry, the United States could draw on German and European experience, and continue to explore the development of a more diverse portfolio of renewable transportation fuels.

The American agricultural community is increasingly interested in the economic opportunity of renewable energy, as well as in the additional benefits to water and soil quality. The lessons from Germany could help U.S. farms and rural communities achieve a broad range of economic, environmental and energy security objectives. The 25x’25 Alliance calls on stakeholders to raise awareness among the farming and rural communities that, in turn, will encourage policy makers to narrow the gap between potential opportunities for farmers in renewables and their actual participation in the market.

25x'25 Policy/Funding 25x'25 Vision, Agriculture, anaerobic digestion, Biofuels, Biomass, Carbon, carbon offsets, cellulosic, clean energy, Climate Change, Congress, Emissions, ethanol, Farms, GHGs, green jobs, greenhouse gases, national security, renewable energy, Solar, Sustainability, switchgrass, Wind

The Senate’s failure to reach agreement on broad energy and climate legislation is an opportunity missed that has left renewable energy advocates disappointed. Despite the momentum generated by the Gulf oil spill and other recent events that have caused a serious re-evaluation of our nation’s energy strategy, lawmakers could not come together and advance the comprehensive, long-term policy needed to address our myriad energy and climate problems.

However, the Senate’s failure to take substantial action does mark the end of this race toward a clean energy future. Renewable energy advocates have to see the run toward the finish line as a marathon, not a sprint. Efforts must be maintained to insure that policy makers adopt the legislative programs and initiatives that maximize, among other solutions, the role that renewable energy from agriculture and forestry can play in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, boosting our economy, improving our environment and enhancing our national security.

Senate leaders have chosen to move a narrow bill that would eliminate the liability cap for damages from oil spills; reform the federal office that oversees oil and gas development; and provides $5 billion to spur the development of a natural gas truck fleet; and provide another $5 billion for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a 45-year-old federal initiative that designates a portion of receipts from offshore oil and gas leases for use in state and local conservation programs.

The legislation, which the Senate plans now to vote on Friday, also authorizes $5 billion to fund the HomeSTAR program, which will encourage construction of energy-efficient homes. This provision should be seen as an opportunity to more broadly implement a key component of a clean energy strategy, and that is to maximize the role of energy efficiency. The Alliance recently issued a series of recommendations to policy makers for achieving a clean energy future, including efficiency-related proposals. The recommendations, which were offered as part of a publication recently released by the Alliance, Meeting the 25x’25 Goal: A Progress Report, called for providing incentives for utilities to aggressively pursue cost-effective energy efficiency; expanding and extending federal loans and loan guarantees for energy efficiency projects; and adopting long-term energy efficiency financial incentives, including investment and production tax credits.

The 25x’25 progress report reiterates the long-established fact that energy efficiency is one of the most available and affordable forms of renewable energy that can help achieve the goals of 25x’25. Energy efficient technologies, processes and policies will reduce domestic energy demand, avoid greenhouse gas emissions, improve national security by reducing energy dependence and provide a foundation for economic growth by creating jobs and cutting energy waste.  The United States has met 75 percent of its new demand for energy since 1970 by increasing the efficiency of buildings, machinery and appliances. Most of these savings come from making buildings more energy efficient through retrofits and more stringent codes for new buildings. According to the DOE’s Energy Information Administration, Americans consumed five percent less energy per person in 2008 than in 2004. Furthermore, a study by McKinsey and Company estimates that by investing $520 billion in energy efficiency over the next 10 years would reduce U.S. non-transportation energy use by almost a quarter by 2020, saving the U.S economy more than $1.2 trillion.

That kind of return should be sufficient motivation for the Senate to broaden efficiency provisions in the bill under consideration to include authorization and funding not only for the “Home STAR” now in the legislation, but also for the “Building STAR” and “Rural STAR” energy efficiency programs. The former would utilize rebates and low-interest loans to help fund retrofits on commercial buildings. The latter, known formally as the Rural Electric Savings Program, would allow electric cooperatives to borrow money to from a $4.9-billion fund established within USDA’s Rural Utilities Service to finance local energy efficiency programs.

Investments in energy efficiency today will have long-term effects on our nation’s energy demand. It is important that as the Senate deliberates even a narrow legislative energy proposal, lawmakers should support programs and federal and private investment that maintain progress in energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy.

25x'25 Energy Efficiency Agriculture, Carbon, Climate Change, Congress, Efficiency, Emissions, EPA, Federal Agencies, GHGs, green jobs, greenhouse gases, infrastructure, Obama Administration, renewable energy, Sustainability

The 25x’25 Alliance commends the more than 100 scientific and academic leaders and experts who signed on to a letter to key members of the Senate this week sharing their concerns over EPA’s handling of “biogenic” carbon emissions and the consequences the agency’s actions could have on the development of biomass energy facilities.  The letter makes a detailed and articulate case against an emissions regulatory “tailoring” rule finalized by EPA in June that treats wood-burning emissions the same as fossil-fuel emissions. The authors say treating biomass the same as fossil fuels could not only stop the development of new emission reducing biomass energy facilities, but  could also encourage existing biomass energy facilities to convert to fossil fuels or cease producing renewable energy.

The letter lays out the basic and unalterable fact that the carbon dioxide released from the combustion or decay of woody biomass is part of the global cycle of biogenic carbon and does not increase the amount of carbon in circulation. In contrast, carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels increases the amount of carbon in the cycle.

The EPA rule is designed to “tailor” permitting programs to limit the number of facilities that would be required to obtain new operating permits based on their greenhouse gas emissions. The rule appears to ignore the agency’s own precedent and the internationally recognized carbon neutrality of biomass. The EPA insists that it has not reversed its position, but the agency last week announced its plans to conduct a 60-day public comment period seeking more information on how climate regulations should treat greenhouse gas emissions from biomass combustion.

Many in the biomass industry fear that EPA could ultimately decide energy from biomass is not carbon neutral and impose penalties on the emissions from biomass facilities. The increased costs, the industry says, would eliminate profits, killing the industry in its relative infancy. Last month, a congressional delegation of more than 60 members wrote to EPA demanding that biomass be kept carbon neutral because of its role as a renewable source of energy that creates jobs and helps pay for projects that thin forests.

There are vast differences in the source of biogenic and fossil carbon dioxide. Burning fossil fuels that are mined from millennia-old deposits of carbon produces an addition to carbon in the atmosphere. On the other hand, burning woody biomass recycles renewable plant growth in a sustainable carbon equilibrium producing carbon neutral energy. Also, biomass power facilities generally contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gases because the use of forest fuels in a modern boiler also eliminates the emissions of methane, a GHG that is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, which would otherwise occur from open burning, land filling or decomposition. In contrast, the mining of coal and exploration for oil and gas release significant amounts of methane and other harmful pollutants into the environment.

Any modeling to examine the impact of carbon-based fuel sources must account for all impacts. Regulators should not have to be reminded that fossil fuels produce a variety of greenhouse gases and pollutants with more negative environmental impacts than woody biomass. The rule, as written, undermines the Obama administration’s support for renewable energy policy in this country. Properly managed forestlands and sustainably produced woody biomass are key components of a strategy that will reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and lead the United States to a new, clean energy future.

25x'25 Carbon Initiative 25x'25 Vision, Agriculture, Biomass, Carbon, clean energy, Climate Change, Congress, Emissions, Forestry, GHGs, green jobs, greenhouse gases, Industry Developments, renewable energy, Sustainability

The use of wood for renewable energy has drawn considerable media attention that has raised questions about just how the biomass industry works. It does not help that a recent study generated media coverage that suggested burning woody biomass emits more carbon than burning coal, a contention disputed by the study’s authors. The hyperbole perpetrated by those who mischaracterize the use of biomass for energy diminishes the importance of dealing with the real problems that our nation faces: dependence on foreign oil, declining forest health, catastrophic wildfires, lack of investment in private forests, and loss of forest and agricultural lands to development.

To buy into the premise that biomass energy is a massive threat to our nation’s trees and forests, one must first suspend all laws of economics, since biomass power never receives the compensation that would allow that kind of destructive scenario. There are more readily available, cheaper and more beneficial sources of biomass fuel. The U.S. biomass power industry and the combined heat and power (CHP) industry are the “bottom feeders” of the forest products, agricultural, and solid waste industries. The removal of excess or waste biomass for energy can help landowners and managers with thinning and other land treatments needed for improving the health and productivity of forests:  increasing overall growth rates; sequestering of carbon; improving wildlife habitat; increasing resistance to insect and disease outbreaks; and lowering the potential for catastrophic wildfire.

Also, to believe the fear-mongering generated by claims that using wood for energy spews massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere compared to coal, one has to come to the contradictory conclusion that we must just continue to mine and burn coal into oblivion because it is just too dangerous to change to a renewable fuel such as biomass, whose carbon is already in circulation in the atmosphere. The carbon “debt” from burning wood is repaid or re-sequestered over time as trees naturally regenerate or are replanted and grow.  In most areas of the country, that debt has been prepaid by the buildup of vegetation over many decades.

However, the bigger and more important carbon implication is the permanent loss of trees and forests when a private landowner no longer has markets for his trees and forests, and thus has no income, and converts the land to other uses such as shopping centers, housing developments, and soybean fields.  Bioenergy development at least provides landowners a market outlet for forest waste material as they continue to pursue traditional wood markets for the more valuable portions of the tree.

The biomass power industry takes great pains to develop biomass power projects, typically CHP,  that are appropriately sized for the resources available, use the least valuable but most socially beneficial fuels, and pay back the “debt” as quickly as possible.

The world needs energy and can get it from a variety of sources. The world has a carbon inventory that is above ground and constantly exchanging between the atmosphere, oceans, vegetation and the soil surface.  Underground is another inventory of carbon tied up in fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal. To meet our energy needs, the United States can either pull that buried inventory out of the ground and release carbon into the atmosphere that is not repaid, which we are told has dire consequences for mankind. Or, the nation can sustainably use the carbon in vegetation as an energy source and pay it forward by reforesting and sustainably managing our trees and forests. The choice is obvious.

25x'25 Energy Resources Agriculture, Biomass, Emissions, Forestry, GHGs, green jobs, greenhouse gases, national security, renewable energy, Sustainability