Cai Steger's Blog: Solving Global Warming tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/csteger//141 2009-10-16T19:21:39Z Movable Type Enterprise 1.52 The Promise of Algae Biofuels - a new NRDC report tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/csteger//141.4330 2009-10-06T23:21:31Z 2009-10-16T19:21:39Z Algae-derived gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel sound like the imaginings of science fiction, but a growing number of entrepreneurs, investors, scientists, and policy makers are trying to make them reality. If developed sustainably, the algae biofuel industry may be able... Cai Steger Algae-derived gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel sound like the imaginings of science fiction, but a growing number of entrepreneurs, investors, scientists, and policy makers are trying to make them reality. If developed sustainably, the algae biofuel industry may be able to provide large quantities of biofuels with potentially minimal environmental impacts.

But to properly assess the sustainability of algae biofuels, we need a way to see the big picture - to analyze the full life cycle impact of algae biofuel production in the context of issues such as water resource management, land use impact, energy balance and air emissions.

To help address this challenge, NRDC has published a new report entitled: "The Promise of Algae Biofuels", authored by Catie Ryan, a consultant with Terrapin Bright Green.  In this report we provide a framework for comprehensive environmental analysis of algae biofuels; identify key ecological issues to be considered across all stages of production; summarize the known and unknown environmental impacts of each production process; and recommend areas for future policy and research.

 

Valcent's High Density Vertical Growth (HDVG) systems grow algae with only light, water, and air in a closed loop, vertical system of polyethylene sleeves in greenhouses. Photo credit: Valcent Products Inc.

 

This report's primary objective is to encourage and participate in a growing, industry-wide effort to determine the complete environmental impacts of transforming algae into fuel. We believe it is vital, working with stakeholders across business and non-business sectors, to develop a clear picture of the environmental pros and cons of algae biofuel systems, environmentally preferable algae fuel pathways, and the areas of research needed to mitigate the impacts of algae fuels. Otherwise, much as with earlier generations of biofuel technologies, the economic, technical and political challenges brought on by unsustainable production practices could derail this promising fuel feedstock.

However, despite the need for accurate sustainability analysis, current publicly available data and project experience is insufficient to make quantifiable comparisons among different algae biofuel (or against other fuel) production pathways . This is due primarily to the current state of the algae biofuels industry, which is sprawling and dynamic, exploring innumerable pathways to produce fuels from algae and developing mostly in "stealth" mode. But to avoid getting mired in similar environmental controversy as seen with corn ethanol, the algae biofuel industry must build on the data currently available and move quickly to fill the multitude of remaining information gaps regarding its environmental performance.

We hope NRDC's work on this project serves as one step in a much larger knowledge-building effort.

Our report starts by mapping five theoretical production pathways and explores the associated environmental implications of the individual process steps contained therein.  Production generally consists of four linked processes, algae cultivation, biomass harvesting, algal oil extraction, and oil and residue conversion, with different options within each broad category.

 

Mapping Framework for Potential and Existing Pathways for Algae Biofuel Production Draft


  • Cultivation: Algae cultivation at commercial scale (where algae is grown in open or closed systems for downstream usage) could have significant environmental consequences, based on how water, nutrients, land, and light are supplied and managed. At a minimum, the criteria for sustainable cultivation should consider the impact of water, land and genetically modified organism (GMO) usage on biodiversity and ecosystem health, as well as the environmental impacts of infrastructure fabrication, materials toxicity, electricity demands, and waste treatment.
  • Harvesting: Harvesting involves recovering, dewatering and drying algal biomass; techniques used vary depending in part on the cultivation system. Most recovery processes require chemical or mechanical manipulation to separate the biomass from the process wastewater. At a minimum, the criteria for sustainable biomass harvesting should consider the potential toxicity of chemical additives, environmental management of output water and the energy and carbon balance implications of energy-intensive drying techniques.
  • Extraction: Algal oil extraction (removing oil from the algae biomass) can be achieved via a number of techniques, but there is limited information about the chemical and energy inputs in this process. The criteria for sustainable oil extraction should consider energy inputs and potential environmental toxicity of chemical solvents.
  • Conversion: Oil and residue conversion pathways include transesterification, fermentation, pyrolysis, and hydroprocessing (among others). These conversion steps have been employed in conventional biofuel refining for some time, meaning good data is available, although not necessarily related specifically to algae biofuels. The criteria for sustainable conversion should consider potential energy usage and the handling of low-value coproducts or byproducts. In the near term, industry may need to embrace biological services (e.g. wastewater treatment) and high value nonfuel coproducts (e.g. animal feed, nutraceuticals,) to make algae biofuels economically viable. This will further influence calculations surrounding algae biofuel sustainability.

 

Open raceway ponds with paddle wheels (far right) for circulating the water. Photo credit: Seambiotic, Ltd.

 

Our report also attempts to determine the anticipated impact of algae biofuel production on several primary ecological resources - water, land, soil, biodiversity and air - as well as its potential energy and carbon balance. 

  • Water: The effect of algae biofuel production on regional water sources is not fully understood and early emphasis by the algae biofuels industry on water impact could mitigate many potential issues. Concerns include aggregate water consumption, systems discharge and water quality, and reduction of groundwater infiltration. The ability of algae to thrive in and treat wastewater and potentially eliminate the need for agriculturally-based biofuels offers one promising path to mitigate some water issues but further study and technology development is needed.
  • Land: Algae biofuels can be produced on non-arable land, which is a strong advantage over agriculturally-based biofuels. However, claims regarding yield per acre are often exaggerated and certain algae cultivation processes could have far more land impact than others. For example open systems will likely have a relatively larger land use footprint than other systems, while heterotrophic systems (which use sugar to grow algae) could have significant indirect land use impacts.
  • Soil and Biodiversity: as with all industrial systems using hazardous substances, algae production could contribute to soil contamination, unless non chemical methods are used for harvesting and other processes. Poisoning soil with salt is also a concern for algae cultivated in briny or brackish water. Overall biodiversity could be threatened by producing algae biofuels unsustainably (e.g. through land transformation, water and soil contamination, air pollution and use of alien species)
  • Air: similar to soil and biodiversity above, the pathway of biofuel production and the technologies used will determine impact on air quality. One potential area for future research is the impact of evaporation from open pond cultivation on local and regional humidity, and local ecosystems.
  • Energy and Carbon Balances: the potential energy and carbon balances of algae biofuels are highly uncertain calculations, and range widely depending on production system, type of biofuel produced, energy savings realized by the coproducts, and so on. In terms of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, it is critical to consider the net impact which includes all direct and indirect inputs and outputs from all production processes employed. Terms used in this context such as "sequestration" are particularly problematic, as they take into account actions and emissions that are not within the boundaries of the algae biofuels production system.

 

Finally, we recommend a number of steps that regulators/policymakers and industry can take to proactively encourage sustainable algae biofuel production.

From a regulatory and policy standpoint, key steps include clarifying roles and responsibilities within government agencies, establishing information resources, specifying sustainability metrics and industry standards, encouraging industry collaboration and assisting in life cycle analysis (LCA) at the fuel product design phase.

The algae industry can proactively address sustainability issues by conducting and publishing techno-economic and life cycle analyses, water balances, and energy and carbon balances; where feasible, adopting low-impact development, operations, and maintenance practices; and improving understanding of how relationships between production processes define resource consumption and management.  Finally, together and separately, the public and private sector should use the information from various sustainability assessments to guide research and development to help algae fuels avoid and mitigate environmental impacts.

Ultimately, environmental questions will persist in the production of algae biofuels until sustainable production processes are fully established. By proactively engaging in environmental analysis and full-system life cycle calculations, and identifying, managing, and mitigating potential environmental impacts associated with algae biofuels production, we can help to develop a sustainable biofuels industry and increase the odds of success for algae-based biofuels,

]]> More on Debate over Waxman-Markey tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/csteger//141.4254 2009-09-29T15:55:53Z 2009-10-09T12:07:27Z Given the link from Andrew Sullivan, I wanted to address a couple additional points in Jim Manzi's recent post on climate change. He and I had exchanged perspectives on the topic a few months back, and it appears we may... Cai Steger Given the link from Andrew Sullivan, I wanted to address a couple additional points in Jim Manzi's recent post on climate change. He and I had exchanged perspectives on the topic a few months back, and it appears we may be reconnecting. Again, I immensely respect his intellect and his thoughts on topics such as entrepreneurialism and innovation. But when it comes to analyzing the economic impacts of climate change he continues to posit the same arguments that inaccurately discredit credible, non-partisan research, and rely on weak counter-studies from highly partisan sources to argue his case.

In the most recent edition, Manzi rebuts Paul Krugman's column arguing for legislative action on climate change, by stating that the cost estimates are understated and not properly appreciated, and that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

First, there are a number of new studies that do a far better job than I will addressing some of the questions on economic benefits of action, and costs of inaction on climate change:

Beyond that, to quickly address the points in Manzi's most recent piece - he takes a data point from 2050 and applies it to current data, exaggerates GDP and household impacts, ignores the post-2050 benefits from pre-2050 action, and continues to refer to one (poorly received) study to argue that it's cheaper (and safer) to do nothing about climate change.

(One quick note: all of the analysis below - and featured in Krugman's column and Manzi's response - is from the most recent Congressional Budget Office study on the economic impacts of Waxman-Markey. CBO is an independent, non-partisan federal agency that has been informing economic and budgetary debate for the past three decades).

First, in responding to Manzi's argument, it's useful to distinguish between impacts on GDP (all U.S. economic activity) and impacts on households (loss of household purchasing power). The CBO measures both, in separate sections.

Per CBO, the impact of Waxman-Markey on annual GDP growth through 2050 would be miniscule. As Waxman-Markey begins to work (i.e. attaching a cost to the pollution externality), it will lead to a tiny reduction in GDP, reducing the forecast GDP growth rate anywhere from 3 to 9 ten-thousandths (i.e. .03% - .09%). As a result, by 2020, GDP will be 99.8% what it would have been without Waxman-Markey, and by 2050, GDP will be 98.9% what it would have been otherwise. While certainly this represents an additional cost, it's easily arguable that Waxman-Markey will not damage the overall U.S. economy in any material way.

Additionally, there is a telling line in the CBO analysis:

"CBO concludes that the net effects on GDP of restricting emissions in the United States-combining the effects of diverting resources to reduce emissions and moderating losses in GDP by averting warming-are likely to be negative over the next few decades because most of the benefits from averting warming are expected to accrue in the second half of the 21st century and beyond. [my emphasis]"

CBO also takes a look at household impact, and determines that Waxman Markey will lead to a slight reduction in household income, but the effect over the first decades will be exceedingly small (e.g. 0.1% reduction in 2012 and 0.2% in 2020), given various cost mitigation measures in place (offsets, banking, strategic reserve, etc.). Again, as above, this impact will rise over time, and by 2050 the cost to households from Waxman-Markey will reduce gross household income by approximately 1%.  However, it is important to reiterate the issue of timing here.  Waxman-Markey takes great pains to limit the early impact of carbon pricing on households (especially lower income) and allow other provisions to take hold that will make it easier (and cheaper) to limit our aggregate carbon emissions.  

Therefore, I'm not quite sure where Manzi arrives at the number "$150 billion, every year for over a hundred years" to use as a reference for the "cost" of this program:

But 1% of U.S. income is an enormous amount of money. Suppose I proposed some government program, and told you that it would cost "only" $150 billion per year, every year, for more than a hundred years, and then told you that this was no big deal because it's only about 1% of the economy?

First, as above, impacts will arrive gradually, over a period of decades. Second - is he referring to household costs or GDP? Either way, his numbers are way off. For the next 20 years, the cost on households (0.4% on average per CBO) will be one sixth of that, and when income impact peaks in 2050, the result will be half that figure. In terms of GDP, again, the effect will be much less - in 2020, the reduction would be a quarter of Manzi's $150 billion and even by 2030, the impact will be half that amount.

But I think an obsession on refuting numbers misses the much bigger, bigger issue.

Of course, if there were a persuasive case that it would create benefits that would more than offset this cost, it would be rational to support it.

Looking only at the direct cost of reducing greenhouse gas pollution ignores the costs that climate change would impose on all of us and the economic and environmental benefits that developing and deploying low-carbon technology will generate. When one considers the risks to our economy and national security brought on by climate change, coupled with the benefits that come from cleaner power and cleaner transportation, increased energy efficiency and millions of new green jobs, passing legislation to limit the overall impact of unchecked climate change is extremely worthwhile government policy.  For those interested, a good starting point for research would be the new studies listed above.

]]> Distorting Costs and Benefits in Climate Legislation tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/csteger//141.3613 2009-06-25T19:50:36Z 2009-09-29T17:15:37Z Update: additional thoughts on the latest article from Jim Manzi are here. While I am always interested in Jim Manzi's perspective, I feel his most recent post ("Dear Member of Congress: Why You Should Vote Against Waxman-Markey") gets things dead... Cai Steger Update: additional thoughts on the latest article from Jim Manzi are here.

While I am always interested in Jim Manzi's perspective, I feel his most recent post ("Dear Member of Congress: Why You Should Vote Against Waxman-Markey") gets things dead wrong.  Although much of his piece is open to debate, I wanted to focus on his analysis of costs vs. benefits in the Waxman-Markey climate bill, otherwise known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).  It's useful to understand the context of the various "numbers" getting tossed about, and vital to focus on the benefits of ACES as well as associated costs.

Manzi's piece outlines a number of reasons why ACES is "contrary to the public interest", beginning with his thoughts on the lack of value it provides:

[ACES] would be a terrible deal for American taxpayers. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, it is projected to impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1% of total consumption) by 2050. The benefits we will get in return? If the law works precisely as intended, in about one hundred years we should expect surface temperatures to be a about one-tenth of one degree Celsius lower than they otherwise would be.

First, this distorts the EPA analysis, which actually demonstrated that the cost of ACES would be very low on a household basis.  The annual cost estimate that Manzi uses ("$1,100 per household by 2050") is inaccurate as it ignores the need to discount this amount to arrive at its value in today's dollars. If one uses the appropriate net present value estimate (which is what the EPA calculated and reported) the average annual cost to households is $80 - $111 per year...less than 10% of $1,100 quoted.  Secondly, and more broadly, the EPA analysis is a cost-effectiveness analysis, not a cost-benefit analysis. As such, the benefits of reducing GHG emissions were not measured in this analysis and accordingly do not filter through to any discussion on household consumption decrease.  Finally, Titles I, II and IV in ACES were not modeled in this EPA scenario, meaning ACES's myriad renewable energy and efficiency measures were not taken into account.  These provisions are designed (among other things) to drive investment towards energy efficiency and renewable energy which will mitigate future impacts from a carbon price, and ultimately reduce the total costs of transforming to a low-carbon economy.  

More importantly, the benefits of ACES are much more significant than the narrow frame of one temperature statistic cited by Manzi (which was arrived at by modeling what would occur if the U.S. was the only country ever to pass climate legislation and assumes no other global action whatsoever).

In fact, there is considerable economic value associated with ACES.  Noted economists such as Larry Summers and Sir Nicholas Stern, and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz have argued for the long-term benefits of energy and climate policies (h/t Laurie Johnson).  The various clean energy provisions included in ACES will redirect trillions of dollars of investment with benefits for American industry and workers.   ACEEE, for example, just released an analysis indicating that the energy efficiency provisions in ACES would save households $1,050 by 2020 and $4,400 by 2030.  Two new studies demonstrate the potential for 1.7 million new jobs most of which could be accessed by low-income workers. 

And of course - there is perhaps the most important benefit in addressing climate change: reducing the risk of the potentially catastrophic economic, environmental and social costs of climate change.  The Congressional Budget Office recently released a study that portrayed devastating environmental and social damage to the U.S. from runaway climate change, and perhaps more germane to this blog, estimated a 3% loss in real adjusted GDP by 2100.

Finally, Manzi also argues that we need to stop focusing on capping carbon, and more on government funding of research into clean energy.  In the comments section of his piece, Manzi states:

If there is a real, though unquantifiably small, possibility of catastrophic climate change, and if we would ideally want some technological hedges as insurance against this unlikely scenario, and if raising the price of carbon to induce private economic actors to develop the technologies would be an enormously more expensive means of accomplishing this than would be advisable, then what, if anything, should we do about the danger?  One obvious approach is to have the government fund technology research directly.

In fact, there are several provisions within ACES where the government is funding (or driving allocations) towards cleantech RDD&D (research, development, demonstration and deployment).  Subtitle D in Title I of ACES provides 10% for State Energy and Environment Development (SEED) funds which will drive anywhere from $5-10 billion in each of the next 10-15 years for investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy by states.  There are the allocations given to transportation (1%-3%), energy efficiency (4.5% to 9.5%), and CCS (2%-5%).   Additionally, long-term innovative research initiative ARPA-E will now receive a full 1% of allowances (with another 0.5% going towards other clean energy innovation programs).  This means additional billions provided for high-risk, high-reward, transformational clean techresearch.

Bottom line - there are extensive economic and environmental benefits encouraged by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is one of the many reasons why this bill should be supported.

]]> Wrap-up of Yesterday’s National Clean Energy Summit tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/csteger//141.1656 2008-08-20T20:42:17Z 2009-03-13T17:31:13Z Cai Steger Yesterday, I attended the well-publicized National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.  Launched by Sen. Harry Reid, the Summit was held to focus attention on the importance of developing clean energy solutions that can positively impact our economy and energy security and help combat climate change. The lineup of speakers featured a host of experts, politicians, environmentalists and clean energy enthusiasts, including the aforementioned senator, the governors of Utah, Arizona and Colorado, Congresswoman Solis, and NYC Mayor Bloomberg, along with prominent clean energy advocates such as T. Boone Pickens, Bob Rubin of Citigroup, and Dan Reicher of Google.  A good wrap-up of the summit can be found here.  My opinions follow below.

The core message: a new clean energy economy promises a virtuous triumvirate – job growth, climate change benefits and improved energy security.  And with 25 separate speakers, it was a message repeated again and again (and again…and again).  Still, it was a strong and powerful framing device, especially given our current economic, environmental and energy challenges.

Other themes mentioned consistently by most speakers:

  • We need to pass a long-term, comprehensive national clean energy policy immediately, but this will require much more political will and leadership than we’re currently seeing.
  • Eliminating our dependency on oil is imperative, but extremely challenging
  • Increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy demand is a top priority, followed by accelerating large-scale, long-term build-out of clean energy supply
  • Five national policy prescriptions that must occur (the uniformity of these recommendations across almost all presentations was notable):
  1. Extend renewable energy tax credits
  2. Pass a renewable energy standard and energy efficiency standard
  3. Pass cap-and-trade legislation
  4. Significantly improve and invest in transmission grid
  5. Boost spending on R&D
Lots of good moments, but some frustrating as well:

 

Highlights:

T. Boone Pickens: gave a strong presentation focusing on his highly-publicized plan to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by replacing gasoline-powered cars with natural gas autos, and installing enough wind and solar power to make up for the natural gas reductions.  Under this plan, we could reduce oil imports by 38%, while wind would provide one fifth of our national electricity needs.  His presentation was clear, concise and funny (even if it grossly oversimplifies certain issues) and extremely well-received by the audience.  A few more thoughts from T. Boone:

Focusing on electric cars as a short-term solution is unrealistic (hence the need for natural gas as a “bridge” fuel to the next generation of cars), but in the long-term, he expects hydrogen or electric cars to supplant gasoline cars. 

Developing natural gas-based infrastructure for transportation isn’t as difficult as perceived, if one starts with our national trucking fleet, which has high turnover and represents 30% of transportation. 

The media budget for this campaign is $58 million (funded entirely by T. Boone), and the primary focus right now is on elevating U.S. energy conservation and educating customers

Tone of nonpartisanship and bipartisanship: in an event sponsored by the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, and the Center for American Progress, the event had very few partisan moments.  Many Republicans had prominent speaking slots (T. Boone Pickens, Gov. Huntsman of Utah, Mayor Bloomberg) and if anything, expressions of frustration over a lack of national leadership were decidedly bi-partisan.  As the development of climate change and clean energy policy solutions will require considerable bipartisan support, it was encouraging to see that tone set in this conference.

Achievements of individual states: presentations by state leaders from Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and Utah demonstrated how much a motivated state government can achieve in terms of boosting clean energy and reducing energy demand.  Nevada is installing a number of ground-breaking solar, wind and geothermal facilities and employing innovative public-private sector partnerships.  In Arizona, all new government buildings must be LEED certified, and, similar to Nevada, a combination of RPS and incentives is boosting clean energy installation rates dramatically.  One innovative Arizona program trains inmates in solar installation, by converting prisons to solar power.  Utah and Colorado demonstrated similar efforts as well.

Emphasis on Federal government leadership with complementary state-based efforts: many presenters lamented the lack of Federal leadership on the issue of clean energy, while focusing on the specific and unique areas where state government efforts can be powerful.  What this mounting frustration accomplishes remains to be seen, but it is important that the future national conversation blends both of these concepts – the importance of strong Federal support and the value of targeted and achievable state policies.

Strong presentations from Dan Reicher, Van Jones, Mayor Bloomberg: Each of these presenters added something significant and unique to the conference – Reicher provided Google’s cachet and strategy and announcing sizable EGS (geothermal) technology grants; Mayor Bloomberg gave a scathing indictment on federal efforts (as well as the two presidential candidates), and proposed a study of renewable energy options for New York City (which has the local media in a relative frenzy), and Van Jones gave an amazingly inspirational speech on the power of a green economy to help the poor.  Definite personal highlights (along with T. Boone of course)

Uniformity of policy recommendations and outcomes: as described above, with few exceptions, presenters followed a very similar script when it came to policy prescriptions and outcomes from capital redirection into a new clean energy economy (the most notable exception being Mayor Bloomberg’s call for a carbon tax instead of cap-and-trade).  This gives the appearance of a bi-partisan and unified front on policies that could be valuable when communicating to the American consumer and voter.  In addition, focusing on the “big three” of jobs, environment, energy security that a national clean energy policy can provide is a helpful and concise message in support of clean supply. 

Cool Facts: Nellis Air Force Base gets 25% of its power from photovoltaic solar panels…the MGM Grand saved 2.6 million kWh annually (enough to power about 200 homes) just by installing CFLs in their parking garage…developing 2% of the potential geothermal capacity in Nevada via “enhanced geothermal systems” could produce the equivalent of one third of U.S. electricity generating capacity.

 

Lowlights:

Uniformity of policy recommendations: While there is certainly value in presenting consistent policy recommendations, it would have been nice to hear about some of the most innovative thinking happening in this space.  Certainly the five policy efforts described above (tax credits, RES/EES, cap-and-trade, grid build-out and R&D) are imperative to future climate and energy efforts.  There was an overwhelming consensus on these five, although Bob Ruben, Dr. David Overskei of Decision Factors, and Jon Wellinghoff of FERC among a few others, tried with some success to inject a little debate on additional options.

However, this reminds me of the famous Henry Ford quote: “If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a better horse.”  Other countries (e.g. Germany, Japan, Spain, Sweden) have installed far greater amounts of renewable energy than have the U.S., through policy measures ranging from feed-in-tariffs to conservation measures and yet there was no discussion of their successes. The political nature of this event may have played a role in this decision, but I believe it quite possible to plan for the present political reality while discussing new and unique policies for the future, no matter how politically unfeasible they may seem currently.

Lack of California presence: similar to the above, but notable enough to warrant separate mention.  Even given the potential politics involved, the most successful state in the nation in terms of renewable energy had no presence at this conference (save one presentation from a California Congresswoman, focusing on national green jobs).  There is no better clean energy testing ground than California right now, and it would have been useful to gain insights and learnings from the state.

Unfunny Las Vegas metaphors: “what happens in Vegas…stays in Vegas”.  Seven speakers.  The same joke told seven different ways.  And each time…just…not…funny.

]]>