EBI, September 24, 2010

(EPA, 2010)

(EIA, 2010)

 Similarities to current energy system  Near-term  Cost effective  Scalable  Deployable/storable  Carbon-negative potential  Rural economic development  Appropriate technology options for the developing world  Synergies with fossil fuels  Synergies with other renewables  Perhaps better to ask “How?”

1. Air Quality 2. Short-Lived Climate Forcers 3. Land-Use Efficiency

 Ozone increase in LA and northeast offset by decrease in southeast  E85 unlikely to improve air quality  Emissions outside of vehicle phase neglected (Jacobson, ES&T, 2007)

 Human health costs ~ Climate change costs  Importance of upstream emissions relative to vehicle emissions (Hill et al., PNAS, 2007)

1. Create a market for sugarcane trash 2. Emissions from indirect land-use change (Morton et al., GCB, 2008)

 Aerosols and Ozone  Atmospheric lifetimes of days to weeks  Cooling and warming properties  Spatial-explicit climate impacts  Black Carbon has 55% of the RF caused by CO2 and a greater forcing than all other SLCFs (Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008)

(Unger et al., PNAS, 2008)

(Naik et al., GRL, 2007)

19 (Campbell et al., ES&T, 2008)

20 (Campbell et al., in prep)

(Debolt, Campbell, et al., GCB-Bioenergy, 2010)

 Source for stratospheric sulfate aerosol.  Important role in stratospheric ozone.  A novel tracer of terrestrial photosynthesis?

(Campbell et al., Science, 2008)

a) Ethanolb) Bioelectricity (Campbell, Lobell, & Field, Science, 2009) 25

 Advantages to expanding focus to include electricity in addition to liquid fuels  Greater emphasis on jet and tanker fuels  Lignin rich feedstock

 Win-win solutions where environmental mitigation results in more bioenergy supply?  E.g. Sugarcane burning vs. second-generation fuels  SLCFs incorporated in mandated GHG thresholds?  International leakage of air quality impacts?  Abandoned lands and other alternative land resources?