Biorefinery sustainability assessment

This article presents a comparative sustainability assessment of three biorefineries that produce liquid fuels used in current infrastructure. The three options considered are biochemical production of ethanol from grain and from cellulosic feedstocks and thermochemical production of Fischer‐Tropsch diesel from biomass‐derived syngas. These biorefineries were compared using numerous environmental, economic, and social metrics, with numerical values derived from a thorough review of recent literature. For each of the three biorefinery options, the metrics were not determined from a specific process design, but from a variety of different designs reported in literature. Where necessary, corn was selected as the feedstock for grain ethanol and switchgrass was selected for cellulosic ethanol and Fischer‐Tropsch diesel. These sustainability metrics were used in an Analytic Hierarchy Process decision analysis to compare the sustainability of the different biorefineries. Thus, a new decision‐making tool has been created in which the user can assign different weights to each category and its metrics. This tool was used to explore the influence of different weights, different market conditions, and uncertainties in the values of the metrics on the relative sustainability of the different options. Based on the results of this assessment, cellulosic ethanol biorefineries are modestly more sustainable than grain ethanol and Fischer‐Tropsch diesel. Grain ethanol was favorable economically whereas Fischer‐Tropsch diesel had the highest score on the societal metrics. © 2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 2010Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/88001/1/10516_ftp.pd

Review of the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan

The Edwards Aquifer in south-central Texas is the primary source of water for one of the fastest growing cities in the United States, San Antonio, and it also supplies irrigation water to thousands of farmers and livestock operators. It is also the source water for several springs and rivers, including the two largest freshwater springs in Texas that form the San Marcos and Comal Rivers. The unique habitat afforded by these spring-fed rivers has led to the development of species that are found in no other locations on Earth. Due to the potential for variations in spring flow caused by both human and natural causes, these species are continuously at risk and have been recognized as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In an effort to manage the river systems and the aquifer that controls them, the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) and stakeholders have developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP seeks to effectively manage the river-aquifer system to ensure the viability of the ESA-listed species in the face of drought, population growth, and other threats to the aquifer

Review of the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan

The Edwards Aquifer in south-central Texas is the primary source of water for one of the fastest growing cities in the United States, San Antonio, and it also supplies irrigation water to thousands of farmers and livestock operators. It is also is the source water for several springs and rivers, including the two largest freshwater springs in Texas that form the San Marcos and Comal Rivers. The unique habitat afforded by these spring-fed rivers has led to the development of species that are found in no other locations on Earth. Due to the potential for variations in spring flow caused by both human and natural causes, these species are continuously at risk and have been recognized as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act(ESA). In an effort to manage the river systems and the aquifer that controls them, the Edwards Aquifer Authority and stakeholders have developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP seeks to effectively manage the river-aquifer system to ensure the viability of the ESA-listed species in the face of drought, population growth, and other threats to the aquifer. The National Research Council was asked to assist in this process by reviewing the activities around implementing the HCP

INTERNET FACILITATED OPEN MODELING:

Adaptive Management is emerging as an important decision making approach for achieving sustainable environments. To be successful however, it requires the effective integration of ongoing systems modeling and participatory democracy. Information technologies hold great promise for supporting the knowledge access and multiparty communications necessary for effective adaptive management discourse. Open Modeling (OM), an integrated set of Internet-facilitated dialog and analysis tools, is seen as the keystone of this enterprise. There is currently no federal or state policy which addresses OM. A preliminary OM classification scheme, and the major components of a robust OM System are identified. These can provide the framework for future policy analysis. Copyright 1999 by The Policy Studies Organization.

Evaluation of the Predictive Ecological Model for the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan: An Interim Report as Part of Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

An ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is in the process of reviewing the many different scientific initiatives underway to support the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The Committee to Review the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan is focusing on the adequacy of information to reliably inform assessments of the HCP\u27s scientific initiatives, ensuring that these initiatives are based on the best-available science. Relationships among proposed conservation measures (including flow protection measures and habitat protection and restoration), biological objectives (defined by the HCP as specified flow rates), and biological goals (such as maintaining populations of the endangered species) are central to the HCP, and are being evaluated during the Academies review. The study spans from 2014 to 2018 and will result in three reports. At the conclusion of Phase 1, the Committee issued its first report (NRC, 2015), which focused on hydrologic modeling, ecological modeling, water quality and biological monitoring, and the Applied Research Program. The Committee will issue its second report in late 2016 and its third and final report in 2018. This interim report is part of Phase 2 activities and will be incorporated, as an appendix, into the second report. This interim report focuses on the ecological modeling only and is being provided prior to the issuance of the second report in order for the Committee\u27s comments (which take the form of conclusions and recommendations) to be considered while the ecological modeling team is still in place