The study, jointly conducted by General Motors and Sandia National Laboratories, predicts that out of 90 billion gallons of ethanol that experts say need to be produced in 2030, 75 billion gallons could be cellulosic ethanol, which usually makes use of feedstock like corn-combs and switch grass.

A press release by Sandia National Laboratories says the study examined four sources of biofuels: agricultural residue, such as corn stover and wheat straw; forest residue; dedicated energy crop, including switch grass; and short rotation woody crops, such as willow and poplar trees. It found that the cost of producing, harvesting, storing and transporting these sources of cellulosic ethanol to newly built biorefineries was minimal and would not lead to a price hike of the final product.

“… an increase to 90 billion gallons of ethanol could be sustainably achieved by 2030 within real-world economic and environmental parameters,” says the study.

Reinforcing the argument that cellulosic ethanol could be produced in a sustainable way, the study notes that
“…large-scale cellulosic biofuel production could be achieved at or below current water consumption levels of petroleum fuels from on-shore oil production and refining.”

The study comes hot on the heels of another study, earlier released by the University of Minnesota, which shows cellulosic ethanol production contribute less to climate change compared to gasoline or even food crops-based ethanol.

The article argues the future lies in cellulosic ethanol, but cautions that capital might prove hard to obtain from Wall Street due to the fact that cellulosic industry is still “…experimenting with a broad range of feedstocks….” Well, this is well founded fear, which the cellulosic industry should see as an opportunity and not a threat to their existence. Innovations such as cellulosic ethanol are fraught with anxiety and uncertainty, but such should not be an excuse to stymie progress. The world’s thirst for energy is unquenchable, and every effort will be needed to seek alternative sources of energy such as cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is clean and its production poses little or no threat to the environment.

Research into feedstocks that can be used to produce cellulosic ethanol needs to be intensified. Currently, the raw material of choice to cellulosic ethanol producers is corn cobs. Switch grass is another raw material that’s fast gaining currency in the biofuels industry.

There’s a lot of support for cellulosic ethanol, in form of financial incentives for research and development, and political goodwill, coming from the government. The industry has a friend in President Barak Obama, who has made a personal commitment to invest in new generation clean energy such as cellulosic ethanol. The Associated Press article notes that the Department of Energy in 2007 awarded $385 million to six companies to conduct research and build biomass-to-fuel plants. The Obama administration is likely to increase investment in cellulosic ethanol production.

The current efforts to shore up cellulosic ethanol seem to be bearing fruits. As I noted in an earlier blog post, POET LLC is operating a pilot biorefinery in Scotland, South Dakota. If everything goes well, the company plans to roll out a $200 million cellulosic ethanol refinery Emmetsburg, Iowa, in 2011. And there are more players willing to jump into the bandwagon. They ought not be discouraged to do so. Demand for energy is ever increasing, and whoever invests in cellulosic ethanol will not regret.

In the press release it issued today to announce the start of the plant’s operations, POET said in 2011, it will roll out a $200 million commercial-scale cellulosic plant in Iowa.

Today’s announcement, of course, is a major development and a big leap to energy independence. More good news is that cellulosic ethanol utilizes non-food crops; so there’ll not be politicking that food security will be compromised. A lot of politics continues to dog food-crops-based ethanol. There are those who claim that diverting food crops, such as corn, to ethanol production is to blame for the current food shortages. There are others who dismiss such an argument as baseless and not supported by facts. Whatever the merits or demerits of using food-crops to make ethanol, POET is demonstrating that the journey to reliable and clean energy is unstoppable.

There’s every reason to cheer up POET, and of course the Federal government, which provided seed money for research. Renewable sources of energy, such as cellulosic ethanol, hold the key to energy independence. President-Elect Baraka Obama, for instance, has said as much on the issue. He has promised massive investments into the next generation of biofuels. POET and other companies in the biofuels business have no excuse of not doubling efforts to produce biofuels. Political will is already there; it’s up to them to exploit it.

Bernick says there’s plenty of a corncob in cornfields, but, unfortunately, the agricultural machinery industry hasn’t found the technology to move it to biorefineries. Since”…cellulosic ethanol is around the corner”, Bernick wants the agricultural machinery industry to redouble efforts to find efficient technology to move corncob from the field without complicating the grain harvesting process.

It seems Bernick is not alone. The debate about the advantages of cellulosic ethanol is finding a life of its own. The North Dakota-based
Jamestown Sun today has an editorial on the future of the ethanol industry. The editorial lists the challenges facing the ethanol industry. Particularly, it highlights the growing opposition toward food crops-based ethanol, and poses the question: Where should we be going with ethanol? Noting that environmentalists remain strongly opposed to food-crops-based ethanol, the editorial advises “…where we would like to be going is to cellulosic ethanol, which uses nonfood crops such as switch grass, crop waste or material like wood chips as raw materials.”

Just like Bernick, Jamestown Sun, however,worries that the “…technology and industry aren’t there yet for commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol refining.” So, what’s the way forward? We all acknowledge times are difficult and that raising capital to develop new technologies for cellulosic ethanol refining is a hard nut to crack. The private sector can’t shoulder this burden alone. It needs help from the government. President-Elect Barack Obama has already pledged to pump money into the production of clean energy. Cellulosic ethanol is one of them. Giving the agricultural machinery industry a leg up, in the form of financial assistance, to produce cutting edge technology to produce cellulosic ethanol would definitely be a big milestone in making the U.S. energy independent.

Way back on November 12, when word went out that Obama planned to nominate Vilsack, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) listed, on its website, six reasons why he’s inappropriate for the position.

Writing on the Nation, John Nichol quotes OCA as accusing Vilsack of having “…a glowing reputation as being a shill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto.”

It’s interesting how anti-biotech groups malign anybody who’s supportive of crop genetic engineering, in total disregard of the nature of such support. Take the case of OCA. It’s quarrel with Vilsack stems from his support for Iowa farmers wanting to grow genetically modified foods. How can anybody expect him not to do that? He’s a Governor of a farm belt state, where life=farming and farming=life. Vilsack’s support for biotechnology has not been a blind one; it has been in the interest of farmers in his state. Well, for his efforts to help Iowa farmers to modernize their farming, he has won accolades from the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Farmers in Iowa will tell you he deserves it. Here is Iowa Corn Growers Association praise Vilsack’s appointment: In a press statement, the association said Vilsack had “…established an outstanding record here in Iowa as a capable, pragmatic leader who understood the importance of agriculture.” These are farmers speaking, not shills for Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta or any other biotech corporation doing business in Iowa.

As Vilsack prepares to move to USDA, he should brace himself for sharper criticism for his stand on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Governor Vilsack must not fear to stand for what’s right. He should stand his ground, especially when individuals or organizations attempt to contradict science. He shouldn’t lock out organizations such as OCA, the Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other entities opposed from agricultural biotechnology from the debate about genetically modified foods. But he must insist they stick to science to justify their opposition to GMOs. The same standards should apply to scientists and corporations advocating for genetically modified foods. They, too, have a duty to make a strong case for GMOs. They ought to educate the public about GMOs. It’s their baby, and they must tend to it.

The law, H.B. 5745 (PDF), requires the Department of Agriculture to publish, in plain language, all the procedures for “…preparing and executing applications and approvals necessary to establish an alternative fuels production facility in Michigan.”

The bill has already passed the Senate and House by wide margins. The law aims at boosting biodiesel and ethanol production in the state. Michigan must be commended for taking this bold step. Since information is power, setting up a one-stop shop for information on how to set up alternative fuel plants is perhaps the best way to attract investors to the Michigan.

Is the Federal government listening? It should follow in the footsteps of Michigan. President-Elect Barak Obama has already committed himself to increasing investment in alternative energy. Obama is on record as having said that “…embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” The President-Elect should reinforce his vow to help the ethanol industry by simplifying the regulatory regime. Ensuring potential investors in ethanol production have easily accessible information on how to set up production plants is the best assurance he can give them that he’s committed to their cause.

Scientists from one of Kenya’s premier university have endorsed crop genetic engineering. After a two-day workshop last week, University of Nairobi researchers dismissed fears that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) posed dangers to human health and the environment.

The scientists said although some caution was needed about GMOs, they had been found to be safe. They called on Kenya and other African countries to quickly enact biosafety laws that would allow their introduction.

Dr. John Nderitu, the Dean of College of Agriculture and Veterinary Services at the University of Nairobi likened GMOs to automobiles which he said if used badly could bring negative outcomes to the society. He said as long as there were biosafety laws to regulate GMOs, he saw nothing wrong in them.

The Kenyan scientists’ call could not have come at a better time. Debate on potential benefits of genetically modified foods, or lack of them, has been raging in Africa. Some anti-technology nongovernmental organizations, mostly based in developed countries, have literary camped in Africa to persuade governments there not to admit GMOs into their countries. This could be the reason why many African countries, except South Africa, continue to shun them. Countries such as Zambia and Zimbabwe have even passed laws to prohibit GMOs from their territories, which raises the question of whether they’d not like their scientists to study the potential of GMOs to agriculture. What’s these countries vision for innovative research if they can’t encourage their scientists to study GMOs?

]]> http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/kenyan-scientists-weigh-on-gmos.html/feed http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/kenyan-scientists-weigh-on-gmos.html http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GmoAfrica/~3/liVbd7Qt18Y/indian-researcher-makes-a-case-for-biotechnology.html http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/indian-researcher-makes-a-case-for-biotechnology.html#comments Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:02:20 +0000 GMO Africa http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/indian-researcher-makes-a-case-for-biotechnology.html The journal Nature has published an article about how developing countries can make the best from biotech. Indira Nath, the article’s author, argues biotechnology can revolutionize food production and healthcare in developing countries only if these countries bolstered their scientific capacity.

Nath regrets intellectual property rights coupled with inhibit scientists from developing countries from accessing critical technologies. Further, the ongoing opposition to genetically modified foods in both developed and developing countries continues to stymie food production in the former countries.

To address this situation, Nath calls on governments in developing countries to intensify efforts in training researchers. They should also provide them with necessary technologies to do their work.

Nath joins a long list of scientists from developing countries calling on their governments to be more proactive promoting science and technology for sustainable development. Dr. Calestous Juma, a Kenyan scientist currently teaching at Harvard, has been another vocal supporter of biotechnology. Writing in Japan Times in July this year, Dr. Juma called on G-8 countries to encourage biotech cooperation in Africa. He cautioned that over-emphasis on biosafety was hindering many African countries from adopting biotechnology.

Nath and Dr. Juma make very strong cases for biotechnology. They are worth listening to.

Four major players in the ethanol industry – Hawkeye, ICM, POET, and Green Plains Renewable Energy, Inc. (GPRE) – yesterday launched an organization called Growth Energy to promote the use of ethanol in a sustainable way. GrowthEnergy also plans to take head on “Big Food” for blaming the ethanol industry for high food prices.

In a press statement issued at the launch of GrowthEnergy, the heads of the four companies argued there was no link between ethanol use and food prices. “Big Food and their Washington lobbyists have been trying to blame the rising cost of food on American ethanol producers and the cost of corn. Well, now that the price of corn has dropped more than fifty percent since the summer, we ask the Big Food industry to explain to the American people why food prices are still so high,” said Jeff Broin, CEO of POET.

Dave Vander Griend, CEO of ICM pointed out that the price of corn had gone down by almost 50 per cent over the last few months yet food prices had not followed suit. “Our current low-priced corn, high-priced food economic situation shows that the experts were right - biofuels production does not lead to increased food costs,” said Griend.

With the launch of GrowthEnergy, it seems the war of words between ethanol producers and the food industry is likely ratchet up. GrowthEnergy is vowing to wage an intensive grassroots campaign to fight disinformation that more ethanol use leads to high food prices. It has already prepared a policy brief (PDF) on the issue, to bolster its argument.

“No specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause,” EFSA said in an opinion article on its web site.

These are weighty words, coming especially from such a nonpartisan organization as EFSA. They’re words directed not only at France but other European countries weighing on the issue of genetically modified crops.

The issue of the safety of GM foods has been discussed since the introduction of the first genetically modified crop in 1996. Reputable organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. National Academies of Science have issued numerous reports on the safety of GM foods. In June 2005, for instance, WHO released a report entitled Modern Food Biotechnology, Human Health and Development, which reaffirmed the safety of GM foods. The U.S. National Academies of Science, itself, has on numerous occasions cautioned against condemning GM crops on the basis of non-scientific evidence.

France and other countries opposed to crop genetic engineering will do their citizens proud if they allow science to guide every decision of GM crops. Blanket condemnation of GM crops doesn’t serve the interests of farmers. It only denies them an opportunity to boost food production.

]]> http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/eu-challenges-france-on-gm-maize.html/feed http://www.gmoafrica.org/2008/11/eu-challenges-france-on-gm-maize.html