Building Technologies Program

1
Policies for Sustainable Biofuels Development in
the United States
Jeff Skeer Office of Policy and International
Affairs U.S. Department of Energy German
Marshall Fund Washington DC 22 February 2008

2
Renewable Fuels Standard Enacted Focus on 2d
Generation Feedstocks

• Year Billions of Gallons of Fuel Per
  Year
• 20 in 10 Proposal Enacted 12/2007
• (Alternative Fuels) (Biofuels Only)
• 2010 10 12
• 2011 11 12.6
• 2012 12 13.2
• 2013 14 13.8
• 2014 17 14.4
• 2015 22 15
• 2016 28 18 3
• 2017 35 21 6
• 2018 24 9
• 2019 27 12
• 2020 30 15
• 2021 33 18
• 2022 36 21

Of Which Non Starch Ethanol Biofuels
3
Comparison of Biofuel Scenarios
Twenty in Ten Proposal
Enacted December 2007l
Biofuels Alternative Fuels
Biofuels
EIA No-Policy-Change Projections
Annual Energy Outlook 2007
Corn Ethanol
History
Cellulosic Ethanol
4
(No Transcript)
5
The Standards are NestedShown with 2022 volumes
6
Our Commitment to Sustainability
DOEs Biomass Program is committed to developing
the resources technologies and systems needed
for biofuels to grow in a way that enhances the
health of our environment and protects our
planet. To that end we are working to

• Develop diverse non-food feedstocks thatrequire
  little water or fertilizer
• Foster sustainable forestry practices toenhance
  forest health
• Selectively harvest biomass componentswhile
  leaving adequate soil nutrients
• Assess life-cycle impacts of major scale-up in
  biofuels production from feedstocksto vehicles
  addressing
• land use and soil health
• water use
• air quality issues
• impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

7
Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated
with Different Fuels
8
Overcoming Barriers to Commercial 2d Generation
BIofuels

• Barriers
• Enzymatic conversion costs
• C5 sugars conversion
• Low Syngas-to-Fuel Yields
• Commercial-scale integration of process
  components
• Inadequate feedstock and distribution
  infrastructure

9
Genetic Strategies to Boost Crop Yields

• Increase feedstock per unit of land by increasing
  growth rate and photosynthetic efficiency.
• Increase fuel yield per ton of feedstock through
  better composition and structure.
• Enhance disease and pest resistance.
• Allow germination and growth in cold weather.
• Use perennial multi-year crops with efficient
  nutrient use and reduced fuel input.
• Permit dense planting and easy harvesting.
• Deep roots for increased carbon sequestration
  drought tolerance and nutrient uptake.

10
Cellulosic Ethanol Potential and Status
Historical and Projected Cellulosic Ethanol Costs
Cellulosic ethanol cost competitiveness and
sustainability attributes are key to biofuels
growth potential
Modeled Ethanol Cost for nth Plant
Enzyme
Feedstock
Conversion
NREL Modeled Cost
Major reductions in the cost of cellulosic
ethanol already achieved much remains to be done
11
DOE Leverages Partnerships to Achieve Cost
Reduction Goals

• Commercial-Scale Biorefineries (up to 385
  million)
• Six cost-shared integrated biorefinery
  demonstration projects to produce130 million
  gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 5 years using
  variety of conversion technologies and cellulosic
  feedstocks
• 10-Scale Biorefinery Validation (currently 4
  projects up to 114 million)
• Cost-shared integrated biorefinery
  demonstrations using cellulosic feedstocks to
  produce renewable fuels one-tenth of commercial
  scale
• Four selectees announced last month for total
  investment of 114 million more selectees
  expected by April 2008
• Ethanologen Solicitation (up to 23 million)
• Five selected research teams working on
  microorganisms
• Enzyme Solicitation (up to 33.8 million)
• Creating highly effective inexpensive enzyme
  systems forcommercial biomass hydrolysis second
  phase cellulase development with cost-sharing
  industry partners
• Thermochemical Conversion (up to 7.75 million)
• Integration of gasification and catalyst
  development
• Joint DOE-USDA Solicitation (18 million)
• Biomass RD Initiative

12
Major DOE Biofuels Project Locations
Geographic Feedstock and Technology Diversity
13
GHG Methodologies Task Force of Global Bioenergy
Partnership (GBEP)

• GHG methodologies taskforce established by GBEP
  steering committee in May 2007.
• Desired end result is flexible methodology for
  policy makers in all countries.
• First taskforce meeting held October 2007.
• Second meeting scheduled for March 6-7 2008 and
  will include solid biomass and liquid biofuels.

14
GHG Taskforce Work Plan

• 1. Review existing methodologies
• 2. Develop a harmonised approach so GHG
  lifecycle assessments can be compared on an
  equivalent basis
• 3 Encompass the full well-to-wheel lifecycle of
  transport biofuels
• 4 Not indicate a preference for any particular
  existing methodology or feedstock or to limit
  parameters and
• 5 Define parameters and inputs to be considered
  when conducting a LCA and develop a good practice
  document.

15
Membership of GHG Taskforce

• Attendance at first meeting included

• UNEP
• UN Foundation
• International Council on Clean Transportation
• University of California Berkeley
• Iowa State University
• GBEP Secretariat

• Canada
• France
• Germany
• Italy
• Japan
• United Kingdom
• United States

16
Results of First GBEP GHG Meeting

• Accomplished review of existing efforts in
  defining methodologies
• Reached broad agreement that it is possible to
  develop common methodology
• Developed preliminary list of parameters needed
  for a common methodology in a checklist
• Recognized issues needing further discussion

17
Development of Common Checklist

• The GHGs to be covered
• The effects of direct land use change both in
  terms of above and below ground carbon
  inventories
• The effects of the production cycle including
  fertilizer production agricultural inputs and
  processing energy
• Combustion of the finished biofuel and tailpipe
  emissions and
• Corresponding factors to facilitate comparison
  with the fuel replaced.

18
Issues Needing further Discussion

• Accounting for co-product emissions
• Ensuring transparency in default values and
  parameters used and assumptions made in
  conducting a GHG lifecycle assessment
• Whether and how to take account of the effects of
  indirect land use change
• How to take account of future technologies (e.g.
  cellulosic) in the design of the methodology.