New Models for Bioenergy Feedstock Supply and Project Implementation
•
1 recomendación•1,093 vistas
Presented by Nick Jordan, Professor, University of Minnesota on December 8, 2014 at the Minnesota Bioenergy Feedstock Development meeting and forum.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a New Models for Bioenergy Feedstock Supply and Project Implementation
Similar a New Models for Bioenergy Feedstock Supply and Project Implementation (20)
Más de Amanda Bilek
Más de Amanda Bilek (13)
Último
Último (20)
New Models for Bioenergy Feedstock Supply and Project Implementation
- 1. New Models for Bioenergy Feedstock Supply and Project Implementation Nick Jordan Plant Genetics Department University of Minnesota-Twin Cities National Agroforestry Center Nick Jordan, Department of Agronomy & Plant Genetics Carissa Slotterback, Humphrey School of Public Affairs Dr. David Mulla, Department of Soil, Water and Climate Dr. David Pitt, Department of Landscape Architecture Len Kne, U-Spatial Mike Reichenbach, Extension Bryan Runck, Department of Geography Amanda Sames, Conservation Biology Program Cindy Zerger, Toole Design Group
- 2. Agriculture: Transforming & Intensifying ….from a few predominant crops and commodities to a wide array of new foods, feeds, bioproducts and biofuels. …can we capitalize on the potential of this new agriculture to improve environment, economy, well-being?
- 3. How? Focus on Sustainable Intensification Agriculture must produce more food, food security & justice Agriculture must produce more food & food security More conservation …amidst global change
- 4. Minnesota Agriculture is Very Efficient & Productive Our Agriculture could be even more efficient and productive How: Add winter-annual crops & perennials to summer-annual crops like corn or soybean Why: New economic opportunities for farmers & rural communities Many other benefits for Minnesota Visualization of perennial & annual crops in Central Iowa
- 5. Biomass from Annuals & Perennials • A powerful vehicle for Sustainable Intensification of Corn Belt agriculture? • More production & more conservation Key: emerging value- added tech for biomass!
- 7. ReactorReac%on( Expansion( Ammonia' Recovery' Raw$ Biomass$ Densifica%on( Biomass$ Commodity$ • Annual & perennial feedstocks • Increases digestibility to 80+% • Stable, 8X dense biomass commodity AFEXTM Biomass Pretreatment 100 kg m-3 800 kg m-3
- 8. Bruce Dale & crew with early AFEX machine
- 9. One ton/day pilot AFEX facility at Michigan State University
- 10. Corn Stover (often needs cover crop after stover harvest?)
- 11. Prairie Cordgrass Native biomass sources
- 12. Big Bluestem
- 13. Maximilian Sunflower Native Polyculture Soil-Conditioning Treatment Plots: Year II Native Mixtures Switchgrass
- 14. ISU Extension USDA ARS Triticale-Sorghum Corn-Rye Biomass from winter-hardy annuals & summer annuals 10-13 tons/acre Can fit in annual rotations Biomass sorghum in Texas
- 15. Miscanthus giganteus 8-10 tons/acre upland sites fixes nitrogen/low N needs? active breeding/agronomy efforts non-native
- 16. Social value from locally-owned processing • Sited like grain elevators • Use many feedstocks • Retain value in local communities: owned by producer coops? • Market to livestock farmers OR biorefineries
- 17. Getting There from Here: How? AFEX depends on developing new production systems & supply/value chains KSU Extension Local Biomass Preprocessing Depots (LBPDs) Landscape Design can help identify biomass production systems that provide a stable, reliable biomass supply & more conservation!
- 18. Our Agriculture Can Be Even More Efficient & Productive Biomass from Annuals & Perennials: • Creates value from underused resources • Enhances soil, water, wildlife & biodiversity • Insures against climate variability BUT… what Biomass from where?
- 19. Application Seven Mile Creek Watershed Building a Community- based Bioeconomy Engaging diverse stakeholders Examining information – food, biomass, water quality, habitat Identifying values Designing for biomass production Exploring tradeoffs, prospects for win-win 24,000 acres
- 20. Application Workshop series with stakeholders Agriculture, conservation, & governance stakeholders Initial workshops – framing/ data on production, dialogue on issues and values Latter workshops – active geodesign with visualization, landscape design, evaluation
- 21. Application Examining information and identifying values Productive capacity – food, biomass Environmental impacts – water quality, habitat Local knowledge Translating values into criteria for landscape design win + win + win + win
- 22. Application Designing for biomass with Geodesign Goal: More commodities and more conservation from working agricultural landscapes Collaborative Geodesign allows for active, real-time engagement with information, place, + people Carl Steinitz. 2012.A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design. Redlands, CA: ESRI
- 23. Application Designing for biomass with Geodesign Geodesign system 55” touchscreens Multiple orientation + data layers Users control presence + transparency of layers Users design with multiple practices Images of visual appearance of practices Instantaneous performance feedback Allows multiple iterations Roads + water features Section boundaries Land cover + topography Watershed boundaries Restorable wetlands Habitat quality Soil erosion + water quality contamination susceptibility Crop productivity Total suspended solids Phosphorus Total runoff Habitat quality Carbon sequestration Financial profitability Conservation tillage Low phosphorus Stover harvest Native prairie Switchgrass
- 25. Designing for biomass with Collaborative Geodesign
- 26. Group 2 Final Design Collaborative Geodesign task: 10,000 acres of biomass in 75,000 acre region
- 27. Landscape design tool in action… http://youtu.be/LoD6KsLShs0
- 29. Outcomes Application Deliberation + design activities increased participants’ belief in the potential value of working agricultural landscapes for sustainable intensification Increased perceptions of trust + shared understanding with other stakeholders Workshops viewed as legitimate, credible forum for exploring prospect of sustainable bioeconomy
- 30. Outcomes Application Participant feedback: These workshops were like a fast-forward for the evolution of a conversation – from the very simplistic agriculture-vs.-environment conflict to a much more nuanced, complicated and respectful understanding of costs, benefits, trade- offs and perspectives surrounding the potential of biomass production to be a driving force of positive outcomes for multiple interests” Process resulted in thinking deeper about equilibrium between environment/ economy Process facilitated thinking about all systems and how integrated they are Helped see prospect of multiple benefits from one practice
- 31. Next Steps Seven Mile Creek Watershed Building a Community- based Bioeconomy Build on stakeholder engagement + design for biomass Design supply chain Address sustainable stover harvest Advance cover crop technology Assess policy impacts Pursue community economic development benefits Exploring tradeoffs, prospects for win-win
- 32. Thank you! Questions? Additional project team members: Dr. David Mulla, Department of Soil, Water and Climate Dr. David Pitt, Department of Landscape Architecture Len Kne, U-Spatial Mike Reichenbach, Extension Bryan Runck, Department of Geography Amanda Sames, Conservation Biology Program Cindy Zerger, Toole Design Group Funding provided by: USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant Program Office of the Vice President for Research Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment Institute on the Environment
- 33. What’s the Story? A case study of sustainable development Widely seen as complex/wicked problem, requiring transdisciplinarity, civic engagement… What does it look like to try to do those things in practice?