biomass resources in california: potential for economic use · biomass resources in california:...
Post on 16-Jun-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
Policy support (briefly) Urban biomass resources Forest biomass resources Agricultural biomass resources Marginal lands Biogas
USDADOE Biomass Advisory Committee
Emeryville California
November 19 2015
Stephen Kaffka Rob Williams Nic George Wan‐Ru Yang Nathan Parker Boon‐ling Yeo Katherine Mitchell Mark Jenner Lucy Levers Wilson Salls Ricardo Amon Taiying Zhang
University of California Davis amp
California Biomass Collaborative srkaffkaucdavisedu530‐752‐8108
httpbiomassucdavisedu
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Signing AB 32 The Global Warming Solutions Act
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires a 10 reduction in fuel carbon intensity by 2020 The state would also like to encourage in-state biofuel production
AB 32 is based on the assumption that climate change could be catastrophic
Governor Brownrsquos Goals
bull Executive Order B‐30‐15 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 below 1990 levels by 2030
ndash Double the efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner
ndash Increase from 33 to 50 renewable electricity
ndash Reduce todays petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50
bull The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (Senate Bill 350 DeLeoacuten 2015)
California Energy Commission‐ 2015 IEPR
4
California Biomass Resources Are Diverse Agriculture
Forestry
Urban
Total
Biomass (Million BDTyear)
Urban Agriculture Forestry Total Technical Resource
86 (from landfill stream) 125 143 354
Gross Resource
129 (landfill) 12 4 (divertedrecycled) 253 Total
258 268 779
Potential Feedstock Gross Biomass
+ 137 BCFyear landfill and digester gas
0 20 40 60 80 100
Jenkins et al (2006) A roadmap for the development of biomass in California
Most biofuel facilities are biodiesel manufacturers using residual Fats Oils and Greases (FOG) and some vegetable oil there are 4 larger ethanol facilities using imported corn grain attempting a shift to grain sorghum There are legacy biomass to power facilities and new AD systems to process MSW and dairy manure
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
California landfilled waste stream by material type Glass 14
Metal 46Electronics 05
Plastic 96
Textiles Carpet 54
Paper amp Cardboard 173
Green Matl 115
CampD Lumber 145
Inerts amp non‐wood CampD 146
HHW 03
Special Waste 39 Mixed Residue 08
Biomass Components sum to 59
Food 155
(adapted from 2008 characterization (Cascadia 2009))
CRampR AD facility Perris CA (80K to 320K ty)
Landfill gas to methane CA policy will support development of AD systems for management or organic MSW residuals esp the LCFS
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Signing AB 32 The Global Warming Solutions Act
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires a 10 reduction in fuel carbon intensity by 2020 The state would also like to encourage in-state biofuel production
AB 32 is based on the assumption that climate change could be catastrophic
Governor Brownrsquos Goals
bull Executive Order B‐30‐15 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 below 1990 levels by 2030
ndash Double the efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner
ndash Increase from 33 to 50 renewable electricity
ndash Reduce todays petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50
bull The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (Senate Bill 350 DeLeoacuten 2015)
California Energy Commission‐ 2015 IEPR
4
California Biomass Resources Are Diverse Agriculture
Forestry
Urban
Total
Biomass (Million BDTyear)
Urban Agriculture Forestry Total Technical Resource
86 (from landfill stream) 125 143 354
Gross Resource
129 (landfill) 12 4 (divertedrecycled) 253 Total
258 268 779
Potential Feedstock Gross Biomass
+ 137 BCFyear landfill and digester gas
0 20 40 60 80 100
Jenkins et al (2006) A roadmap for the development of biomass in California
Most biofuel facilities are biodiesel manufacturers using residual Fats Oils and Greases (FOG) and some vegetable oil there are 4 larger ethanol facilities using imported corn grain attempting a shift to grain sorghum There are legacy biomass to power facilities and new AD systems to process MSW and dairy manure
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
California landfilled waste stream by material type Glass 14
Metal 46Electronics 05
Plastic 96
Textiles Carpet 54
Paper amp Cardboard 173
Green Matl 115
CampD Lumber 145
Inerts amp non‐wood CampD 146
HHW 03
Special Waste 39 Mixed Residue 08
Biomass Components sum to 59
Food 155
(adapted from 2008 characterization (Cascadia 2009))
CRampR AD facility Perris CA (80K to 320K ty)
Landfill gas to methane CA policy will support development of AD systems for management or organic MSW residuals esp the LCFS
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Signing AB 32 The Global Warming Solutions Act
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires a 10 reduction in fuel carbon intensity by 2020 The state would also like to encourage in-state biofuel production
AB 32 is based on the assumption that climate change could be catastrophic
Governor Brownrsquos Goals
bull Executive Order B‐30‐15 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 below 1990 levels by 2030
ndash Double the efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner
ndash Increase from 33 to 50 renewable electricity
ndash Reduce todays petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50
bull The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (Senate Bill 350 DeLeoacuten 2015)
California Energy Commission‐ 2015 IEPR
4
California Biomass Resources Are Diverse Agriculture
Forestry
Urban
Total
Biomass (Million BDTyear)
Urban Agriculture Forestry Total Technical Resource
86 (from landfill stream) 125 143 354
Gross Resource
129 (landfill) 12 4 (divertedrecycled) 253 Total
258 268 779
Potential Feedstock Gross Biomass
+ 137 BCFyear landfill and digester gas
0 20 40 60 80 100
Jenkins et al (2006) A roadmap for the development of biomass in California
Most biofuel facilities are biodiesel manufacturers using residual Fats Oils and Greases (FOG) and some vegetable oil there are 4 larger ethanol facilities using imported corn grain attempting a shift to grain sorghum There are legacy biomass to power facilities and new AD systems to process MSW and dairy manure
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
California landfilled waste stream by material type Glass 14
Metal 46Electronics 05
Plastic 96
Textiles Carpet 54
Paper amp Cardboard 173
Green Matl 115
CampD Lumber 145
Inerts amp non‐wood CampD 146
HHW 03
Special Waste 39 Mixed Residue 08
Biomass Components sum to 59
Food 155
(adapted from 2008 characterization (Cascadia 2009))
CRampR AD facility Perris CA (80K to 320K ty)
Landfill gas to methane CA policy will support development of AD systems for management or organic MSW residuals esp the LCFS
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Governor Brownrsquos Goals
bull Executive Order B‐30‐15 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 below 1990 levels by 2030
ndash Double the efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner
ndash Increase from 33 to 50 renewable electricity
ndash Reduce todays petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50
bull The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (Senate Bill 350 DeLeoacuten 2015)
California Energy Commission‐ 2015 IEPR
4
California Biomass Resources Are Diverse Agriculture
Forestry
Urban
Total
Biomass (Million BDTyear)
Urban Agriculture Forestry Total Technical Resource
86 (from landfill stream) 125 143 354
Gross Resource
129 (landfill) 12 4 (divertedrecycled) 253 Total
258 268 779
Potential Feedstock Gross Biomass
+ 137 BCFyear landfill and digester gas
0 20 40 60 80 100
Jenkins et al (2006) A roadmap for the development of biomass in California
Most biofuel facilities are biodiesel manufacturers using residual Fats Oils and Greases (FOG) and some vegetable oil there are 4 larger ethanol facilities using imported corn grain attempting a shift to grain sorghum There are legacy biomass to power facilities and new AD systems to process MSW and dairy manure
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
California landfilled waste stream by material type Glass 14
Metal 46Electronics 05
Plastic 96
Textiles Carpet 54
Paper amp Cardboard 173
Green Matl 115
CampD Lumber 145
Inerts amp non‐wood CampD 146
HHW 03
Special Waste 39 Mixed Residue 08
Biomass Components sum to 59
Food 155
(adapted from 2008 characterization (Cascadia 2009))
CRampR AD facility Perris CA (80K to 320K ty)
Landfill gas to methane CA policy will support development of AD systems for management or organic MSW residuals esp the LCFS
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
California Biomass Resources Are Diverse Agriculture
Forestry
Urban
Total
Biomass (Million BDTyear)
Urban Agriculture Forestry Total Technical Resource
86 (from landfill stream) 125 143 354
Gross Resource
129 (landfill) 12 4 (divertedrecycled) 253 Total
258 268 779
Potential Feedstock Gross Biomass
+ 137 BCFyear landfill and digester gas
0 20 40 60 80 100
Jenkins et al (2006) A roadmap for the development of biomass in California
Most biofuel facilities are biodiesel manufacturers using residual Fats Oils and Greases (FOG) and some vegetable oil there are 4 larger ethanol facilities using imported corn grain attempting a shift to grain sorghum There are legacy biomass to power facilities and new AD systems to process MSW and dairy manure
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
California landfilled waste stream by material type Glass 14
Metal 46Electronics 05
Plastic 96
Textiles Carpet 54
Paper amp Cardboard 173
Green Matl 115
CampD Lumber 145
Inerts amp non‐wood CampD 146
HHW 03
Special Waste 39 Mixed Residue 08
Biomass Components sum to 59
Food 155
(adapted from 2008 characterization (Cascadia 2009))
CRampR AD facility Perris CA (80K to 320K ty)
Landfill gas to methane CA policy will support development of AD systems for management or organic MSW residuals esp the LCFS
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Most biofuel facilities are biodiesel manufacturers using residual Fats Oils and Greases (FOG) and some vegetable oil there are 4 larger ethanol facilities using imported corn grain attempting a shift to grain sorghum There are legacy biomass to power facilities and new AD systems to process MSW and dairy manure
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
California landfilled waste stream by material type Glass 14
Metal 46Electronics 05
Plastic 96
Textiles Carpet 54
Paper amp Cardboard 173
Green Matl 115
CampD Lumber 145
Inerts amp non‐wood CampD 146
HHW 03
Special Waste 39 Mixed Residue 08
Biomass Components sum to 59
Food 155
(adapted from 2008 characterization (Cascadia 2009))
CRampR AD facility Perris CA (80K to 320K ty)
Landfill gas to methane CA policy will support development of AD systems for management or organic MSW residuals esp the LCFS
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
California landfilled waste stream by material type Glass 14
Metal 46Electronics 05
Plastic 96
Textiles Carpet 54
Paper amp Cardboard 173
Green Matl 115
CampD Lumber 145
Inerts amp non‐wood CampD 146
HHW 03
Special Waste 39 Mixed Residue 08
Biomass Components sum to 59
Food 155
(adapted from 2008 characterization (Cascadia 2009))
CRampR AD facility Perris CA (80K to 320K ty)
Landfill gas to methane CA policy will support development of AD systems for management or organic MSW residuals esp the LCFS
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
California landfilled waste stream by material type Glass 14
Metal 46Electronics 05
Plastic 96
Textiles Carpet 54
Paper amp Cardboard 173
Green Matl 115
CampD Lumber 145
Inerts amp non‐wood CampD 146
HHW 03
Special Waste 39 Mixed Residue 08
Biomass Components sum to 59
Food 155
(adapted from 2008 characterization (Cascadia 2009))
CRampR AD facility Perris CA (80K to 320K ty)
Landfill gas to methane CA policy will support development of AD systems for management or organic MSW residuals esp the LCFS
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
CRampR AD facility Perris CA (80K to 320K ty)
Landfill gas to methane CA policy will support development of AD systems for management or organic MSW residuals esp the LCFS
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Potential energy from landfill stream Landfill Stream
California 2010 (post recycled and black bin)
Million Tons of Total
Electricity Potential
(MWe) (GWh y-1)
Fuel Potential (MM gge)
Biogenic Material (food green CampD wood papercardboard other)
178 59 1230 10800 700
Non-Renewable Carbonaceous
(plastics textiles)
Inert (glass metal other CampD and
mineralized)
Totals
46
79
303
15
26
100
670
-1900
5900
-16700
400
-1100
CalRecycle 2010 Disposal Composition from Cascadia (2009) Energy Characterization adapted from Williams (2003)
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
High fire risk areas in California forest and rangelands FRAP 2011
Alternative fates for Californiarsquos forests
Biomass energy recovery from forest residuals and fuel load reduction can help preserve forest health and ecosystem function
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
Healthy forests significantly reduce the occurrence of severe wildfire and lower wildfire suppression costs Forest management for healthy forests whether for harvest restoration or fire hazard reduction goals produces large quantities of lsquowastersquo material suitable for biomass energy production
Only a small fraction of the total forested landscape in California can be treated with forest management prescriptions that reduce wildfire risk via operations that generate positive net revenue There is potential to expand treated forest area through the offset of harvest and hauling costs from the sale of forest residue for alternative fuel production This offset might come from an increase in the value of forest residues based on demand for their use as biofuel feedstock or from state policy that promotes their use as a low carbon fuel through carbon offsets
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Table 10b‐6 Cumulative and annual forest residue amounts Forest Variant Code and Ownership (Fig 10b‐4)
Total area treated (acres)
Forest residue cumulative total 40 yrs (BDT)1
Forest residue annual (BDTyr)
Forest residue cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (BDT tonsacre)
Merchantable timber
cumulative per acre over 40 yrs (cu ftacre)
Private WS 1439421 49075947 1226899 3410 242882 CA 1557834 44430339 1110759 2852 222120 NC 2335867 74660949 1866524 3196 226129 SO 541860 8741283 218532 1613 155443
Subtotal 5874982 176908518 4422713 Average=2768
Public WS 2770479 54695064 1367377 1974 181100
CA 1259483 21681298 542032 1722 160871
NC 754330 12037465 300937 1596 126518
SO 964707 11430056 285751 1185 103914
Subtotal 5748999 99843883 2496096 Average=1619
Total 11623981 276752401 6918810 Average = 2193
CA Inland California NC North Coast SO Southern Oregon WS Western Sierra CR Central Rockies (not included in model)
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
The project developed a new statewide resource assessment of forest biomass feedstock The assessment utilizes a knowledge base of forestry expertise developed at UC Berkeley and the Biomass Summarization Model (BioSum) a temporally dynamic spatially explicit forest stand development modelhellipthat estimates hellipon‐site woody biomass resulting from forest operations BioSum had not previously been applied statewide in California
Over the 40‐year simulation period California forests generate forest residue of about 177 million bone‐dry‐tons (BDT) on private land and 100 million BDT on federal land for a total of 277 million BDT On average this is about 7 million BDT of forest woody biomass per year across the state
The largest total cumulative amount of woody biomass comes from North Coast private lands with over 74 million BDTs Standardized on a per acre basis Western Sierra private lands have the greatest output 34 BDTacre and the Southern OregonNortheast California public lands have the least output 12 BDTacre
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Potential for Biofuel Production from Forest Woody Biomass Mitchell et al 2015 (STEPSITS)
GBSM was run for two conversion technologies biochemical cellulosic ethanol and gasification‐synthesis of drop‐in fuels (Fischer‐Tropsch FTD) Cellulosic ethanol biofuel production ranged from 45 million gasoline gallon equivalents per year (MGGEY) to 154 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $385gge to $485gge FTD production estimates ranged from 17 MGGEY to 241 MGGEY with minimum selling prices from $340gge to $480gge
The value of biofuels would need to be greater than those observed in the current market to make the system profitable However prices of $2000 per Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit and $075 per Renewable Fuel Standard cellulosic RIN would provide residue‐based biofuels an additional value of roughly $125gge The best performing biorefineries analyzed here are economic with the $125gge subsidy
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Current (2013) biofuel production in California‐CBC website
Biofuel Facilities (MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4 Biodiesel 621 13 Totals 2411 17
There is in‐state demand for vegetables oils and other agricultural feedstocks if produced at a price that allows conversion to be profitable The price biofuel producers can pay depends in‐part on the carbon intensity of the feedstock
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Food-plant $16490102 $23681 $593523 $66434 $116780 Food-animal $10793300 $10007347 $14167468 $8624935 $2422917 Feed $2408398 $10225065 $3971174 $6735085 $10318090 Fiber $409272 $32159 $1217333 $8058 $5218 Ornamentals $3725194 $107520 $987533 $50937 $458294 Other $58798 $22324 $64042 $20585 $7807 Total Value $33885064 $20418096 $21001074 $15506034 $13329106
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states more feed and industrial crops are produced Food crops are higher in value and more diverse
USDA NASS 2007 Census of Agriculture Jenner
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
2010 USDA Biofuels Roadmap Estimates Advanced Biofuel Production from New Capacity (billion gallons)
Region
of Total Advanced
Volume Advanced Biofuels
Total Advanced
Total Advanced
Ethanol Biodiesel Volume RFS2 Basis (1) Southeast (2) Central East (3) Northeast (4) Northwest (5)
498 433 20 46
1045 001 883 026 042 001 079 018
1046 909 042 096
1047 922 043 105
West (6) lt03 006 000 006 006 United States 2055 045 2100 2123
(1) RFS2 Basis - higher density fuels receive higher weighting relative to ethanol Biodiesel is 15 (2) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil energy cane biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues (3) Feedstocks Perennial grasses canola soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (4) Feedstocks Perennial grasses soyoil biomass (sweet) sorghum corn stover logging residues (5) Feedstocks Canolastraw logging residues (6) Feedstocks Biomass (sweet) sorghum logging residues
USDA predicted little bioenergy production from crops in California or elsewhere in the western US
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Soil age
oldest
100K
30-80K
10K
youngest
Hardpans thick clay Soils with structured
High clay content drainage limitations salinity alkalinity
Silts loams low OM crusting
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Hyp Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger modeling scale
layers (vernal pools) horizons
A Bt C
Oak-savannarangelands
rangelandpasture some perennials
perennials annuals mostly annuals Soil use
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Average profit for all crops and acres of each or 45 Cropping System Clusters in five regions estimated using the BCAM model Size reflects cropland acres in each cluster For reference the left‐most 3‐crop cluster contains 333000 acres The 11‐crop $193acre average profit cluster contains 111800 acres NCA northern California counties CEN San Joaquin Merced Madera Stanislaus Fresno SSJ Kern Kings Tulare SCA Imperial Riverside COA Monterey San Luis Obispo (Kaffka and Jenner 2011 wwwbiomassucdavisedu )
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Regions Have Different Characteristics
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Regional differences in likely energy crop acreage adoption based on favorable price relationships with incumbents crops
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canola Sweet Sorghum
Sugarbeet Safflower Bermudagrass
NCA CEN SSJ SCA
Kaffka and Jenner 2011
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Steve Kaffka Nic George Jimin Zhang Bob Hutmacher
California Department of Food and AgricultureCalifornia Energy Commission and ANR grants to evaluate new bioenergy feedstock crops winter annual oilseed crops as feedstocks
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
NORTE
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRAMENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
DEL
-
Tulelake Yreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Oilseed research sites located across the state Data for economic modeling comes from this and other types of agronomic research
Winter annual crops require much less irrigation water per unit of economic product than most summer crops and offer production alternatives for land despite reduced water supplies due to the increase in perennial crops in California with their ldquohardenedrdquo water demands
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
120 canola amp 105 camelina varieties from 14 public amp private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations amp seasons
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Canola intercropped with newly-planted pistachios in Kern County Pistachios emerge late There is a large amount of land potentially available in new or re-planted orchards and vineyards in California on a yearly basis that might produce oilseed crops in winter largely on rainfall or with limited irrigation There may be opportunities in young orchards throughout California for both Canola and Camelina winter inter-crops Estimate 100K acresy
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Modeled Erosion (Mghayr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and cover are extremely important
They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land
Alternatively they may be used in dry‐farmed systems during the winter season when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most
Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop thanks to its low water and nutrient demands Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry‐farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives
Dry‐farmed lands in CA Salls and Kaffka
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement It can work at the regional or farm level
Production function
PMP function
X e g i jg j
Peg jY eg j Ceg j X eg j
Pg i j jigjigj ig X Cg i j
X g i j
i Max Energy crop function e
Subject to X g ie j Ag j j= acres ac-ft of water i eA
P egij = farm price of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j C egij = farm cost of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j Y egij = yield of crop i and energy crop e in region g and resource j X egij = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e in region g for crop i Ᾱgj = constrained hectares of crop j in region g β gij = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g resource j ω gij = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop i in region g and resource j
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year 2012)
INPUT (per Ac) Quantity UNIT CostUnit Total
FERTILIZER $22790 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $074 $12950 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $074 $1480 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $054 $6480 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $094 $1880 PESTICIDES $5640 Assure II 2 pint $2000 $4000 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $035 $140 M90 50 ml $005 $250 Capture 1 Ac $1250 $1250 SEED $4800 Canola 6 lb $800 $4800 LABOR $4717 Labor (Machine) 21 hrs 1608 $3377 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 134 $1340 FUEL $3087 Diesel 9 gal $343 $3087 REPAIR amp MAINTENANCE $1280 Lubricants 1 Ac $220 $220 Repair 1 Ac $1060 $1060 CUSTOM amp CONSULTANT $3137 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $216 $216 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $803 $803 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $618 $618 Soil Test 1 Ac $1500 $1500 OTHERS $26653 Overhead $ 25000 Crop Insurance $ 1000 Interest on Operative Capital $ 653 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $72104 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $65909 Yield per Acre 2500 lb
Canola Yolo County 2007
N rate (lb Nac) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
bac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 yield (lbac) = 1030 + 149 (lb seed lb N ac) (r2 = 097)
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods
This data reports farmer choices about what they grew and where they grew it and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions
Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices location and extent of new crop adoption using BCAM
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
croptype 1 2 3 4
alfalfa 272 2949 2566 1599
barley 106 133 039 162
beans 224 115 305 729
bermudagrass 000 000 000 001
broccoli 112 020 027 227
carrot 029 023 004 047
corn 209 1267 3326 1434
cotton 3031 2545 180 963
foragefodder 005 020 088 064
garlic 719 020 000 066
lettuce 649 057 023 236
melon 243 102 035 237
oat 032 327 1787 1191
potato 000 004 229 555
rice 033 071 025 146
ryegrass 000 000 003 006
safflower 117 017 005 032
sorghum 007 008 025 027
sudangrass 003 040 113 051
sugarbeet 130 224 044 053
tomato 2974 1136 249 1028
wheat 1103 920 926 1147
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa 2334 1117 3719
barley 005 053 006
beans 013 368 008
bermudagrass 151 691 929
broccoli 926 713 284
carrot 905 715 159
corn 526 839 227
cotton 221 152 761
foragefodder 044 102 182
garlic 005 002 010
lettuce 2067 1508 242
melon 368 603 190
oat 024 268 095
potato 101 605 029
rape 023 035 063
rice 000 002 000
ryegrass 003 041 020
safflower 001 067 000
sorghum 005 083 047
sudangrass 239 136 196
sugarbeet 635 205 1374
tomato 035 122 015
wheat 1370 1573 1445
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
southern SJV SCA Imperial ValleyPalo Verde
Cluster analyses identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC Sacramento Valley NSJ northern San Joaquin Valley SSJ
Valley)
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka draft CEC report)
High yields are important for canola adoption
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
As yield increases crops become profitable at a lower yield and entry price declines The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand in the state change
acres Canola Canola gal needed yield yield oil biodisel for (tac) (lbac) fraction lb oilac ac 60Mgy
1 2000 0425 850 116 5152941 125 2500 0425 10625 146 4122353 15 3000 0425 1275 175 3435294 175 3500 0425 14875 204 2944538
2 4000 0425 1700 233 2576471
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
On an agro‐ecological basis there are many feedstock crop possibilities in California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola mustards Salt‐tolerant perennial grasses on ldquomarginalrdquo lands
Energy beets
Source (current) in‐state capacity estimated
feedstock cost mgy $gge (2009‐10)
Grain‐based ethanol 205 currently mostly corn grain based Biodiesel 55‐60 mostly FOG Other
(potential new in‐state) New agricultural crops
ethanol 150 090 to 390
biodiesel 75 282 oilseeds (canola Camelina) Agricultural residues
rice straw 68 as CNG (gge) 4 AD units and 200K t straw dairy manure 155 as CNG
Additional FOG 40 Industry estimate
biodiesel from corn oil
ethanol 355 biodiesel 175
CNG 160
Grain sorghum sugarbeets sugarcane and energy cane use of approximately 500K ac
notes Current and potential in‐state alternative fuel production estimates
From Kaffka et al 2015STEPS‐CEC project
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Shallow groundwater areas in the San Joaquin Valley
Drainage from saline perched water tables was a significant issue in the western San Joaquin Valley
+
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Biomass Derived Alternative Fuels and Power Use of marginal lands in California for biomass feedstocks Lucia Levers Taiying Zhang Stephen Kaffka
Due to a long history of irrigated agriculture and natural characteristics the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley contains a large amount of salt affected land with shallow water tables Using this land to produce biofuelbioenergy feedstocks could keep this land in production potentially remediate it find a beneficial use for saline drainage water and support ultimate disposal of brines and trace elements and create businesses and jobs in disadvantaged areas Location and amounts of marginal land are estimated using DWR data for groundwater table height Marginal Land is categorized as Highly Marginal (Water table is lt= 5 feet to surface) and Moderately Marginalized (Water table is lt= 20 feet to surface) The WSJV is divided into sub‐regions based on groundwater sub‐basins Grasslands Kern Tulare and Westlands
Figure 1 Total Marginal Land Drainage (ac fty) over Time
Figure 2 Imported Water Groundwater Used and Marginal Land in Westlands sub‐basin over time (ac fty)
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Potential Energy Production ( 105 Gal of Gas Equivalent) Low and High indicate different potential Dry TonAc yields
METHODS We used conversion rates for three biomass conversion processes Gasification cellulosic ethanol and biogas Estimates were made for two drainage salinity levels 6 and 10 dSm and for three sub scenarios 50 Highly Marginal Land 100 Highly Marginal Land and 100 Moderately Marginal Land For each scenario we estimated results for three drainage water amounts Low (low surface water due to drought ‐ 2001 data is used) Med (med surface water ndash mean of 2000 to 2010 is used) and High (surface water in a high precipitation year ndash 2006 data is used) We assumed 100 of drainage water was available We also used two conversion rates from dry matter to energy low and high
CONCLUSIONS Perennial grasses like Bermuda can be grown on marginal land in the WSJV as part of an IFDM (Integrated Farm Drainage Management) system using primarily drainage water Doing so will help remediate marginal lands provide energy or income to help with final disposal of residual brines and create new biorefineries in disadvantaged communities they may provide remediation to the soil and wildlife benefits There is more marginal land in the study area than can be used for perennial grasses grown with drainage water due to drainage water limitations Substantial energy production is possible but further analysis is needed particularly a bio‐economic regional optimization model in order to look for economic feasibility
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Potential future land area for salt‐tolerant biomass production
httpwwwlatimescomlocalcaliforniala‐me‐g‐drought‐drawdowns‐and‐death‐of‐the‐salton‐sea‐20141021‐htmlstoryhtml Sources Tim Krantz professor of environmental studies Salton Sea Database program director University of Redlands Lisa Benvenuti GIS analyst University of Redlands California State
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
bull Policy support (briefly) bull Urban biomass resources bull Forest biomass resources bull Agricultural biomass resources bull Marginal lands bull Biogas
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Table ES2 Biogas Technical Potential from California Resources
Feedstock Amount
Technically Available
Biomethane Potential (billion cubic feet)
CNG (gge)
Fraction in use
Animal Manure 34 MM BDT 197 ( 155 Mgge) lt 1
Landfill Gas 106 BCF 53 (420 Mgge) ~60
Municipal Solid Waste (food leaves grass fraction)
12 MM BDT 126 (I00 Mgge) lt 1
Waste Water Treatment Plants
118 BCF (gas) 77 (60 Mgge)
Total 93 (735 Mgge)
Williams et al CBC 2015 (774 GGEMMBTU) The potential for urban organic residue and manure‐based AD systems is large and likely to expand
Williams et al 2015 Draft Report to CRC
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Spatial distribution of dairy manure and the NG transmission network
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Renewable natural gas potential in California
CA Production Potential
10 bcfyr
Manure
146 bcfyr
Landfill Gas
55 bcfyr
96 bcfyr
WWTP
MSW (food waste)
Existing capacity (all end uses)
N Parker Based on Williams (2014)
2012 CA vehicular NG consumption
147 bcf
2022 projection
Technical Potential
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
SUMMARY Approximately 263 billion gallons of wastewater and 35 million dry tons of solid residues are produced annuallyhellip Approximately 55 percent of the wastewater is from canneries and fruit and vegetable processing with another 20 percent each from creameries and meat processinghellip Almond hulls account for nearly 60 percent of solids residue (dry basis) with almond and walnut shells contributing another 20 percenthellip Solids from fruit and vegetable processing (canneries dehydrators fresh and frozen) meat processing wineries and creameries contribute about 760000 dry tons solid residue (approximately 20 of total solids)hellip
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
‐
California Food Processing Industry Organic Residue Assessment Amon et al 2011
0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000
Almond Hulls
Almond Shells
Walnuts Shells
Milk Cheese Ice Cream Butter
Fruits amp Vegetables FreshFrozen
Fruits amp Vegetables Cannery
Fruits amp Vegetables Dehydrated
Poultry Wastewater
Red Meat Wastewater
SJV Winery Wastewater
Tonsyear
LMS Total dry tons HMS Total dry tons BOD5 Total tons
Food Processing Sector
BOD5 Biogas Solids Biogas LMS Thermal Potential Residue Avail ability
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMB tu)
Power (MW)
CHP (MMBt
u) Cannery F amp V 72 25748
0 111 3946
00 High
Dehydrated F amp V 04 12530 127 4514 60
High
FreshFrozen F amp V 36 12950 0
25 8836 0
High
Winery 09 31080 167 5929 60
High
Creamery 57 20277 0
None
Poultry 1 35410 123 4385 90
None
Red Meat 38 13479 0
181 6436 70
None
Almonds 4274 19545 260
Hulls Low Shells
medium Walnuts 337 15419
02 High
Total CHP
Power Total (MW) 226 733 4611 557
Recovered Heat (MMBtu)
80356 0
2609 640
21087 162
2450036 2
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
Colony Tulare AD Project (500 tons per day)
Combined food processing wastes with current AD system at a waste water treatment plant
Photo credits City of Tulare Public Works source Jacques Franco UC Davis - Public Institute for Energy Environment and the Economy jzfrancoucdavisedu 51
- Biomass Resources in California Potential for Economic Use
- Policy support (briefly)
- Urban biomass resources
- Forest biomass resources
- Agricultural biomass resources
- Marginal lands
- Biogas
-
top related