Scientists compile field studies across US to identify influences on biomass yield
MADISON, WI, July 12th, 2010 – While scientists have conducted numerous studies on production of biomass from biofuel crops, such as switchgrass, no one has yet compiled this information to evaluate the response of biomass yield to soils, climate, and crop management across the United States.
A team of researchers from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Dartmouth College published just such a study in the July-August 2010 Agronomy Journal, published by the American Society of Agronomy. The researchers used peer-reviewed publications to evaluate switchgrass yield as it relates to site location, plot size, stand age, harvest frequency, fertilizer application, climate, and land quality. Switchgrass is one type of crop under consideration for use as a feedstock for advanced biofuels.
The scientists compiled a total of 1,190 biomass yield observations for both lowland and upland types of switchgrass grown from 39 field sites across the United States. Observations were pulled from 18 publications that reported results from field trials in 17 states, from Beeville, TX in the south, to Munich, ND in the Midwest, and Rock Springs, PA in the northeast.
IMAGE: Scientists harvest switchgrass planted at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The field trial was established in 1992 by researchers from Virginia Tech to examine biomass production across a five-state region....
Click here for more information.
Among the many factors examined, statistical analysis revealed that much of the variation in yield could be accounted for by variation in growing season precipitation, annual temperature, nitrogen fertilization, and they type of switchgrass.
Lowland switchgrass outperformed upland varieties at most locations, except at northern latitudes. Annual yields averaged 12.9 metric tons per hectare for lowland and 8.7 metric tons for upland ecotypes. Some field sites in Alabama, Texas and Oklahoma reported biomass yields greater than 28 metric tons per hectare using the lowland cultivars Kanlow and Alamo.
The research team did not observe any bias for higher yields associated with experimental plot size, row spacing, or with preferential establishment of stands on high quality lands. A model developed from the data, based on long-term climate records, projected maximum yields in a corridor westward from the mid-Atlantic coast to Kansas and Oklahoma. Low precipitation west of the Great Plans limited yields in that region.
"Field trials are often planted to provide local estimates of crop production," said Stan Wullschleger, a crop physiologist who led the study. "However, viewed in a broader context, results from individual field trials can contribute to a larger perspective and provide regional to national scale estimates of yield and the variables that determine that yield."
Lee Lynd, co-author on the article and Steering Committee Chair of the Global Sustainable Bioenergy Project observed, "This is the largest data base analyzed to date for energy crop productivity as a function of geographically distributed variables. The finding that there is no bias with respect to either plot size or land productivity is important. A promising future direction is to apply the modeling approaches taken here to additional bioenergy crops at a global scale in combination with various land use scenarios."
Scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Dartmouth College continue to explore factors involved in the production of biomass from switchgrass and other dedicated energy crops. One of the lessons learned from the current analysis is that yield data from an even broader range of soil and climatic conditions will be useful in building better predictive models. Future studies should extend the geographic distribution of field trials and thus improve our understanding of biomass production for promising biofuels like switchgrass.
###
The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary. View the abstract at http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/4/1158.
A peer-reviewed international journal of agriculture and natural resource sciences, Agronomy Journal is published six times a year by the American Society of Agronomy, with articles relating to original research in soil science, crop science, agroclimatology and agronomic modeling, production agriculture, and software. For more information visit: http://agron.scijournals.org.
The American Society of Agronomy (ASA) www.agronomy.org, is a scientific society helping its 8,000+ members advance the disciplines and practices of agronomy by supporting professional growth and science policy initiatives, and by providing quality, research-based publications and a variety of member services.
Monday, 12 July 2010
Electric Car-Makers Develop 'Cartones'
Updated: Sunday, 11 Jul 2010, 1:01 PM CDT
Published : Sunday, 11 Jul 2010, 1:01 PM CDT
(NewsCore) - Select first gear and “vroom”, off you go. Or would you prefer to go “whoosh”? Or “zoom”? The choice may soon be yours, it was revealed Sunday, with electric-car makers tailoring engine noises so their vehicles don’t endanger pedestrians who cannot hear them.
While investigating different noises manufacturers realized they could offer customized sounds to individual buyers. After ringtones, here come the car tones, and as well as the classic “vroom” noises, researchers have been playing with sounds from films such as "Star Trek" and "Blade Runner."
The Lotus engineering group is working with car firms in Europe and Japan to develop suitable sounds, and the first should be available next year.
Colin Peachey, an engineer with the group, said: “You could have 'Star Trek' sounds for the U.S. and 'Doctor Who' for the U.K. If you take it to its extremes it could be like ringtones for mobile phones.”
Regulators, however, may have other ideas. In Japan the government has published guidelines stating that electric vehicles should include a noise but advises that the sounds, which may become mandatory, should be “car-like.”
Published : Sunday, 11 Jul 2010, 1:01 PM CDT
(NewsCore) - Select first gear and “vroom”, off you go. Or would you prefer to go “whoosh”? Or “zoom”? The choice may soon be yours, it was revealed Sunday, with electric-car makers tailoring engine noises so their vehicles don’t endanger pedestrians who cannot hear them.
While investigating different noises manufacturers realized they could offer customized sounds to individual buyers. After ringtones, here come the car tones, and as well as the classic “vroom” noises, researchers have been playing with sounds from films such as "Star Trek" and "Blade Runner."
The Lotus engineering group is working with car firms in Europe and Japan to develop suitable sounds, and the first should be available next year.
Colin Peachey, an engineer with the group, said: “You could have 'Star Trek' sounds for the U.S. and 'Doctor Who' for the U.K. If you take it to its extremes it could be like ringtones for mobile phones.”
Regulators, however, may have other ideas. In Japan the government has published guidelines stating that electric vehicles should include a noise but advises that the sounds, which may become mandatory, should be “car-like.”
Changes Choke Cap-and-Trade Market
Text By MARK PETERS
The original U.S. cap-and-trade market, which succeeded in slashing the power-plant emissions that cause acid rain, is in disarray following the issuance of new federal pollution rules.
The collapse in the pioneering market where power producers trade permits that allow them to emit sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that cause acid rain comes as policy makers seek to establish a similar market to curb the emissions of carbon, a cause of climate change.
The acid-rain market has struggled for the past two years as utilities, states and investors waited for the Environmental Protection Agency to issue new rules. The rules, released last week, put tougher limits on emissions by power plants but rely less on trading. As a result, the allowances that utilities now trade to allow them to emit sulfur dioxide are expected to become worthless.
"It is tragic," says Gary Hart, an analyst at ICAP Energy LLC based in Birmingham, Ala., who has worked on environmental markets for two decades. "It is something that worked so well."
The U.S. acid-rain trading program is often cited as the first, large-scale effort by a country to combine environmental goals with a market system. Starting in 1995, the U.S. government put a limit on sulfur-dioxide emissions—essentially the "cap" in cap and trade. That limit affects mostly coal-fired power plants.
Then officials created a market by handing out a set number of emission allowances to utilities. Plants surrendered one allowance for each ton of sulfur dioxide they emitted into the atmosphere. If utilities cut emissions by switching to low-sulfur coals, increasing efficiency or adding emission-control technology, they could sell their extra allowances or reduce the number of allowances they needed to buy.
The acid-rain market has been considered a success, helping to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions by half. Permits to emit sulfur had once traded for $1,600 a ton. European carbon markets followed, and the Obama administration has said it supports the notion of caps on carbon emissions.
The market's collapse shows how vulnerable market-based approaches to reducing air pollution are to government actions. That could scare off investors, who won't commit to a market where the rules can change at any minute.
The current problems in the acid-rain market stem from 2005, when the EPA, with the backing of many utilities and environmental groups, announced major new reductions in smog-forming and soot-producing emissions, and expanded the reach of the cap-and-trade system in more than two dozen, mostly Eastern, states.
But in 2008, in response to lawsuits filed by a handful of utilities and North Carolina, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the EPA had overstepped its authority in expanding the markets and that parts of the new rules conflicted with existing Clean Air Act regulations. The court allowed the expansion of the market to take place, but it ordered the EPA to rewrite its rules to comply with existing law. Prices of allowances fell in response, and trading dwindled.
In response to the ruling, prices for the pollution allowances plunged to $130 a ton. Utilities held off on projects to clean up their plants.
Last week, the EPA issued new rules to comply with the court's decision. The new program will limit the use of the market and instead require most of the emission reductions to come from changes at the plants themselves. And millions of allowances that utilities now hold can't be used under the new program, which will issue its own allowances.
The EPA, which says its hands were tied by the court ruling, says changes aren't a signal that the EPA has soured on market-based programs to combat pollution.
The acid-rain market isn't likely to recover from the new rules, people involved in the market say. Requiring utilities to take new steps to cut sulfur-dioxide emissions will cause an already large surplus of allowances to balloon further.
"It really feels like prices are going to zero quickly," says Peter Zaborowsky, a managing director of Evolution Markets Inc., a White Plains, N.Y.-based provider of environmental brokerage services for utilities and investors. Allowances traded at times at less than $3 last week.
U.S. Sen. Thomas Carper, a Democrat from Delaware, has proposed new legislation that could revive the markets, but the bill faces a Congress focused on broader energy legislation.
Many utilities and environmental groups generally haven't lost faith in a market-based approach to the problem of air pollution. John Walke, clean-air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says that the 2008 appeals-court decision remained silent on the larger question of the effectiveness of environmental markets, and that the new EPA rules shouldn't be viewed as an abandonment of cap-and-trade.
"The acid-rain market continues to be relevant to the debate over CO2 because it is a successful model," he says.
Write to Mark Peters at mark.peters@dowjones.com
The original U.S. cap-and-trade market, which succeeded in slashing the power-plant emissions that cause acid rain, is in disarray following the issuance of new federal pollution rules.
The collapse in the pioneering market where power producers trade permits that allow them to emit sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that cause acid rain comes as policy makers seek to establish a similar market to curb the emissions of carbon, a cause of climate change.
The acid-rain market has struggled for the past two years as utilities, states and investors waited for the Environmental Protection Agency to issue new rules. The rules, released last week, put tougher limits on emissions by power plants but rely less on trading. As a result, the allowances that utilities now trade to allow them to emit sulfur dioxide are expected to become worthless.
"It is tragic," says Gary Hart, an analyst at ICAP Energy LLC based in Birmingham, Ala., who has worked on environmental markets for two decades. "It is something that worked so well."
The U.S. acid-rain trading program is often cited as the first, large-scale effort by a country to combine environmental goals with a market system. Starting in 1995, the U.S. government put a limit on sulfur-dioxide emissions—essentially the "cap" in cap and trade. That limit affects mostly coal-fired power plants.
Then officials created a market by handing out a set number of emission allowances to utilities. Plants surrendered one allowance for each ton of sulfur dioxide they emitted into the atmosphere. If utilities cut emissions by switching to low-sulfur coals, increasing efficiency or adding emission-control technology, they could sell their extra allowances or reduce the number of allowances they needed to buy.
The acid-rain market has been considered a success, helping to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions by half. Permits to emit sulfur had once traded for $1,600 a ton. European carbon markets followed, and the Obama administration has said it supports the notion of caps on carbon emissions.
The market's collapse shows how vulnerable market-based approaches to reducing air pollution are to government actions. That could scare off investors, who won't commit to a market where the rules can change at any minute.
The current problems in the acid-rain market stem from 2005, when the EPA, with the backing of many utilities and environmental groups, announced major new reductions in smog-forming and soot-producing emissions, and expanded the reach of the cap-and-trade system in more than two dozen, mostly Eastern, states.
But in 2008, in response to lawsuits filed by a handful of utilities and North Carolina, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the EPA had overstepped its authority in expanding the markets and that parts of the new rules conflicted with existing Clean Air Act regulations. The court allowed the expansion of the market to take place, but it ordered the EPA to rewrite its rules to comply with existing law. Prices of allowances fell in response, and trading dwindled.
In response to the ruling, prices for the pollution allowances plunged to $130 a ton. Utilities held off on projects to clean up their plants.
Last week, the EPA issued new rules to comply with the court's decision. The new program will limit the use of the market and instead require most of the emission reductions to come from changes at the plants themselves. And millions of allowances that utilities now hold can't be used under the new program, which will issue its own allowances.
The EPA, which says its hands were tied by the court ruling, says changes aren't a signal that the EPA has soured on market-based programs to combat pollution.
The acid-rain market isn't likely to recover from the new rules, people involved in the market say. Requiring utilities to take new steps to cut sulfur-dioxide emissions will cause an already large surplus of allowances to balloon further.
"It really feels like prices are going to zero quickly," says Peter Zaborowsky, a managing director of Evolution Markets Inc., a White Plains, N.Y.-based provider of environmental brokerage services for utilities and investors. Allowances traded at times at less than $3 last week.
U.S. Sen. Thomas Carper, a Democrat from Delaware, has proposed new legislation that could revive the markets, but the bill faces a Congress focused on broader energy legislation.
Many utilities and environmental groups generally haven't lost faith in a market-based approach to the problem of air pollution. John Walke, clean-air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says that the 2008 appeals-court decision remained silent on the larger question of the effectiveness of environmental markets, and that the new EPA rules shouldn't be viewed as an abandonment of cap-and-trade.
"The acid-rain market continues to be relevant to the debate over CO2 because it is a successful model," he says.
Write to Mark Peters at mark.peters@dowjones.com
Lloyd's adds its voice to dire 'peak oil' warnings
Business underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil, says Lloyd's of London/ISS report
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 July 2010 15.28 BST
One of the City's most respected institutions has warned of "catastrophic consequences" for businesses that fail to prepare for a world of increasing oil scarcity and a lower carbon economy.
The Lloyd's insurance market and the highly regarded Institute of Strategic Studies (ISS, known as Chatham House) says Britain needs to be ready for "peak oil" and disrupted energy supplies at a time of soaring fuel demand in China and India, constraints on production caused by the BP oil spill and political moves to cut CO2 to halt global warming.
"Companies which are able to take advantage of this new energy reality will increase both their resilience and competitiveness. Failure to do so could lead to expensive and potentially catastrophic consequences," says the Lloyd's and ISS report "Sustainable energy security: strategic risks and opportunities for business".
The insurance market has a major interest in preparedness to counter climate change because of the fear of rising insurance claims related to property damage and business disruption. The review is groundbreaking because it comes from the heart of the City and contains the kind of dire warnings that are more associated with environmental groups or others accused by critics of resorting to hype. It takes a pot shot at the International Energy Agency which has been under fire for apparently under-estimating the threats, noting: "IEA expectations [on crude output] over the last decade have generally gone unmet."
The report the world is heading for a global oil supply crunch and high prices owing to insufficient investment in oil production plus a rebound in global demand following recession. It repeats warning from Professor Paul Stevens, a former economist from Dundee University, at an earlier Chatham House conference that lack of oil by 2013 could force the price of crude above $200 (£130) a barrel.
It also quotes from a US department of energy report highlighting the economic chaos that would result from declining oil production as global demand continued to rise, recommending a crash programme to overhaul the transport system. "Even before we reach peak oil," says the Lloyd's report, "we could witness an oil supply crunch because of increased Asian demand. Major new investment in energy takes 10-15 years from the initial investment to first production, and to date we have not seen the amount of new projects that would supply the projected increase in demand."
And while the world is gradually moving to new kinds of clean energy technologies the insurance market warns that there could be shortages of earth metals and other raw materials needed to help them thrive.
Lloyd's also calls on manufacturers, retailers and the wider business community to reassess global supply chains and their just-in time models because the "current system is increasingly vulnerable to disruption."
The report says government needs to do much more to bring additional price stability and transparency if the global carbon market is to become a reality.
Richard Ward, chief executive of Lloyd's, said the failure of the Copenhagen climate change talks last December has helped lull many business leaders into a false sense of security about the challenges ahead. "We are in a period akin to a phony war. We keep hearing of difficulties to come, but with oil, gas and coal still broadly accessible – and largely capable of being distributed where they are needed – the bad times have not yet hit ... all businesses ... will be affected by energy supplies which are less reliable and more expensive."
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 July 2010 15.28 BST
One of the City's most respected institutions has warned of "catastrophic consequences" for businesses that fail to prepare for a world of increasing oil scarcity and a lower carbon economy.
The Lloyd's insurance market and the highly regarded Institute of Strategic Studies (ISS, known as Chatham House) says Britain needs to be ready for "peak oil" and disrupted energy supplies at a time of soaring fuel demand in China and India, constraints on production caused by the BP oil spill and political moves to cut CO2 to halt global warming.
"Companies which are able to take advantage of this new energy reality will increase both their resilience and competitiveness. Failure to do so could lead to expensive and potentially catastrophic consequences," says the Lloyd's and ISS report "Sustainable energy security: strategic risks and opportunities for business".
The insurance market has a major interest in preparedness to counter climate change because of the fear of rising insurance claims related to property damage and business disruption. The review is groundbreaking because it comes from the heart of the City and contains the kind of dire warnings that are more associated with environmental groups or others accused by critics of resorting to hype. It takes a pot shot at the International Energy Agency which has been under fire for apparently under-estimating the threats, noting: "IEA expectations [on crude output] over the last decade have generally gone unmet."
The report the world is heading for a global oil supply crunch and high prices owing to insufficient investment in oil production plus a rebound in global demand following recession. It repeats warning from Professor Paul Stevens, a former economist from Dundee University, at an earlier Chatham House conference that lack of oil by 2013 could force the price of crude above $200 (£130) a barrel.
It also quotes from a US department of energy report highlighting the economic chaos that would result from declining oil production as global demand continued to rise, recommending a crash programme to overhaul the transport system. "Even before we reach peak oil," says the Lloyd's report, "we could witness an oil supply crunch because of increased Asian demand. Major new investment in energy takes 10-15 years from the initial investment to first production, and to date we have not seen the amount of new projects that would supply the projected increase in demand."
And while the world is gradually moving to new kinds of clean energy technologies the insurance market warns that there could be shortages of earth metals and other raw materials needed to help them thrive.
Lloyd's also calls on manufacturers, retailers and the wider business community to reassess global supply chains and their just-in time models because the "current system is increasingly vulnerable to disruption."
The report says government needs to do much more to bring additional price stability and transparency if the global carbon market is to become a reality.
Richard Ward, chief executive of Lloyd's, said the failure of the Copenhagen climate change talks last December has helped lull many business leaders into a false sense of security about the challenges ahead. "We are in a period akin to a phony war. We keep hearing of difficulties to come, but with oil, gas and coal still broadly accessible – and largely capable of being distributed where they are needed – the bad times have not yet hit ... all businesses ... will be affected by energy supplies which are less reliable and more expensive."