1. Timothy M. Smith Director, Initiative for Sustainable Enterprise Associate Professor, Bioproducts & Biosystems Engineering University of Minnesota MIT/Ford/Shell Research Workshop Dearborn, MI June 9, 2009 Sustainable Biofuels: Baselines, Uncertainties & Values

2. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota The really big questions… How do we feed and secure energy for 9 billion people, while… –Stabilizing global climate change? –Protecting important (high-value) ecosystems? –Reducing poverty and income disparity? “Science” alone can’t provide the answers!

3. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Sustainable Biofuels Federal & State Policy: –Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) adopted by EPA to implement provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. –State-level blending mandates, renewable portfolio standards and low carbon fuel standards (CA,11 Northeastern states and 9 Midwestern states pursuing these policies) –Waxman-Markey, American Clean Energy and Security Act –Biofuels Interagency Working Group (Obama initiative; May 9, 2009) Voluntary Standards Development: –Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels –Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance –Biofuels and Sustainable Development (with Global Bioenergy Partnership) –SCS-001/ANSI - Draft National Standard –IEA – Task Force 40 –National Biofuels Action Plan – USDA

4. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Examples of Advantages and Disadvantages of Biofuels Advantages of Biofuels:  Reduction of imported crude oil  Renewability  Rural development  Use of waste material  Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions Disadvantages of Biofuels:  Energy intensive production  Runoff of agrochemicals to water  Use of limited water supplies  Threatened and endangered species  Increased soil erosion  Land conversion effects  Introduction of invasive species (Currant 2009)

5. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Global Biofuel Blending Targets and Production U.S. Ethanol (2022)*: Prod: 15.3 – 17.1 bil. Gallons; approx. 2.5 times 2008 levels * EIA 2008

6. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Biomass in the U.S. (A. Milbrandt 2005) Top 5 Biomass States: Iowa 8.3% Illinois 6.7% MN 6.2% Missouri 4.4% ND 4.1% Top 529.5% Minnesota: Expected to produce 1.7 – 2.1 billion “advanced biofuels” by 2022 (Smith & Suh 2008) Would need all crop residues, switchgrass from CRP and forest residues!!!

7. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota | UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Department of Bio-based Products (Wisner 2007)

8. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Global Biofuel Blending Targets and Production U.S. Ethanol (2022)*: Prod: 15.3 – 17.1 bil. Gallons; approx. 2.5 times 2008 levels Imports: 2.4 – 3.1 bil. Gallons; approx. 5 times 2008 levels EU (2020): Require 20-50% imports to reach 2020 blending target Sept 2008 – target amended to 4 percent from today’s crop- based biofuels. 45% GHG savings over fossil fuels rising to 60% in 2015. Latin America (2017): Brazil Argentina Colombia CBI Feedstock for 30 bil. gallons per year** * EIA 2008; **Kline and Oladosu (2008)

9. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Sustainability Impacts of Biofuels Fossil Fuel Use and Depletion Net Energy Balance Global Warming

10. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Feedstocks

11. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Environmental Impacts of Biofuels Fossil Fuel Use and Depletion Net Energy Balance Global Warming Land Use

12. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt (Fargione et al. 2008) RegionFeedstockLand conversion from… Years to repay carbon debts Indonesia and Malaysia Palm OilLowland tropical rainforest 86 years Indonesia and Malaysia Palm OilTropical peatland rainforest 420-840 years BrazilSoybeanAmazonian rainforest 320 years BrazilSugarcaneCerrado sensu stricto (woodland savanna) 17 years BrazilSoybeanGrass dominated Cerrado biome 37 years USCornCentral Grasslands 93 years

13. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Lifecycle GWP of Renewable Fuels (EPA-420-F-09-024, May 2009)

14. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota EPA Lifecycle GHG Emission Reduction Results for Renewable Fuels (EPA-420-F-09-024, May 2009)

15. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Environmental Impacts of Biofuels Fossil Fuel Use and Depletion Net Energy Balance Global Warming Land Use Air Quality Food-for-Fuel Soil Quality Water Quality Water Availability Biodiversity Invasive Species Socio-Economic Aspects

16. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Non GWP Environmental Impacts (Zah et al. 2007)

17. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota The Promise of Algae? (Muhs et al. 2009) Water, Energy & Costs

18. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Carbon Intensity of Petroleum Transport Fuels Typical Baseline Values used: - Gasoline: 92 – 97 g/CO 2 e/MJ - Diesel: ≈ 82 g/CO 2 e/MJ Point estimates from 95 - 115 g/CO 2 e/MJ Uncertainty brings the petroleum baseline to a potential 90 - 130 g/CO 2 e/MJ depending on: - Overseas vented natural gas - Oil sands processing tech. - Treatment of co-product electricity from cogeneration - Method used to determine refinery emissions - Treatment of residual oil and coke co-products Unnasch. S., et al. (2009).

19. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Concluding Thoughts Policy will play a major role in sustainable biofuels development, but not the only role. Private voluntary standards and certifications will attempt to address the multiple trade-offs difficult for governmental policies to address. We are very early in the process… criteria and implementation mechanisms are far from being determined – let alone “standardized” within a handful of “winning” (legitimate) private governance initiatives. Nearly as much uncertainty exists within extant petroleum-based systems as developing bio-based systems (access, security, transport, land-use change, process technologies, etc.). Time horizons matter Much more work is needed to create the data infrastructure and institutions necessary to handle multiple viable/credible sustainability standards/policies for biofuels. Any normalization or weighting of environmental/social/economic factors feeding standards (policy or market driven) are subjective and based on the stakeholders engaged in decision-making.

20. ©2008 T. M. Smith Center for Sustainable Enterprise Development, University of Minnesota Questions and Contact Tim Smith 612.624.6755 timsmith@umn.edu