University of California, Santa Cruz – August 8, 2011
50% increase in
population by 2050
 70% increase in food
demand by 2050
 40% increase in energy
demand by 2030

The challenge is not simply meeting increased
demand, but doing so sustainably.
Slide 5
(EPA, 2010)
(EIA, 2010)



Emerging policy innovations
Synergies with poverty alleviation
Perhaps better to ask “How?”
1.
2.
3.
How much land is available?
What are the life-cycle impacts?
What is bioenergy precarious role in the
climate-energy nexus?
1700
1710
1720
1) Abandoned agriculture areas
from historical land use data
(HYDE, SAGE)
2) Exclude agriculture-toforest and agriculture-to-urban
(MODIS12C1)
3) High estimate of potential
yields from ecosystem model
(CASA)
4) Regional bioenergy potential
on abandoned agriculture lands.
12
13
(Campbell et al., ES&T, 2008)
14
(Trent, 2010)

Algae bioenergy sustainability (Wiley, Campbell, McKuin, WER, 2011)
 Wastewater co-benefits
 Efficient harvesting with electrocoagulation and electrofloculation


Electrocoagulation / Electroflocculation
Surface charge analysis of algae
(Wiley, Campbell, McKuin, WER, 2011)



A global resource… Abandoned Agriculture
Regional opportunities… Mountaintop Mining
No land use… Offshore Algae
 Not commercially viable yet
 Electrochemical approach is emerging
Slide 20
(Campbell et al., Science, 2009)
30,000
20
20,000
10
10,000
0
0
Net Output
30
Vehicle Cycle Ga soline Input
40,000
Vehicle Cycle Electric Input
40
Fuel Cycle Gasoline Input
50,000
Fuel Cycle Electric Input
50
Gross Electricity Output
Net Output
Vehicle Cycle Ga soline Input
Vehicle Cycle Electric Input
Fuel Cycle Gasoline Input
Fuel Cycle Electric Input
Gross Ethanol Output
Transportation Mileage (10 3 mi ha -1 y -1 )
a) Ethanol
b) Bioelectricity
(Campbell, Lobell, & Field,
Science, 2009)
23
Future
Historical
Yield Anomaly (%)
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
Volatility = 15%
2000
2005
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
Year
Volatility = 30%
(Campbell, Sloan, Snyder, et al., In Prep)
(DOE, 2009)
Converting Brazilian residue to electricity has greater GHG
benefits than conversion to ethanol
 Residue-based ethanol has small impact on US energy
security but electricity would have massive impact on
Brazilian energy security

(Campbell & Block, ES&T, 2010)
(Campbell et al., In Prep)
(McKinsey, 2007)
(Casillas and Kammen, Science, 2010)
(McKuin & Campbell,
In Prep)
(Pacala and Socolow, Science, 2004)


Role in stratosphere (Crutzen, 1976)
A novel tracer of carbon sequestration?
CO2
COS
(Campbell et al., Science, 2008)
COS
450
400
350
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
Year
1980
1990
2000
550
550
a) GPP Growth
b) GPP Fixed
500
COS (ppt)
450
350
1930
450
400
400
1940
1950
1960
1970
Year
1980
1990
2000
350
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
Year
1980
1990
2000
550
500
pt)
COS (ppt)
500
(Campbell et al., In Prep)

Rapid growth with or without sustainability
basis.

Resources available for a multi-disciplinary
approach to bioenergy research and education.

Many opportunities for engaging with industry,
policy, and mass media.

NSF/CAREER (Env’l Sustainability Program #0955141)

DOE/Institute for Climatic Change (#050516Z30)

Stanford/Carnegie: Chris Field, Joe Berry, David Lobell

Iowa: Jerry Schnoor, Greg Carmichael

NASA: Stephanie Vay, Randy Kawa

Wonderful Students! Andrew Mckuin, Brandi McKuin,
Chi-Chung Tsao, Patrick Wiley, Xianyu Yang
Question: What are the life-cycle GHG emissions of
ethanol (g CO2e MJ-1)?
 Objective: Team presentations in 30 min (~4 slides)
 Materials: http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/ecampbell3/ucsc/
 Approach: Modify a widely referenced LCA model (Farrell
et al., Science, 2006) with updated information

 Team 1: Crutzen et al. (N2O)
 Team 2: Plevin et al. (Feedstock location)
 Team 3: Searchinger et al. (Indirect land-use)
 Team 4: Fargione et al. (Direct land-use)
209.631.9312 | ecampbell3@ucmerced.edu
(Tilman , 2009)
(Tilman, 2009)
(Raupach et al., PNAS, 2007)
(Raupach et al., PNAS, 2007)
(RAEL)
Impact (Death/yr)
MORTALITY
MORTALITY
HOSPITAL ADMISSION
HOSPITAL ADMISSION
250
1200
200
1000
800
150
600
100
400
50
200
0
0
Pope et al.
Woodruff et al. Laden et al.
Moolgavkar, 2000
(Age 18-64)
Moolgavkar, 2003
(Age 65-99)
(Campbell, et al., In Preparation)
(Campbell et al., In Preparation)
(Fox & Campbell, ES&T, 2010)