Strategic Investments Discussion
An interactive panel discussion with the audience will discuss what investments / strategic decisions state agencies and university scientists should be making to expedite development of "organic waste to fuels" technologies?
Discussion Summary
From your perspective, what are the unresolved issues around feed-stocks and process technology that must be addressed?
The panel addressed two primary concerns: feedstock competition and the importance of focusing on high-value co-product development rather than commodity fuel / energy production. Feedstock competition was of particular interest to the commercial participants. A first concern was the level of investment risk for facilities deploying technologies is high if they are feedstock competition increases. A second concern was that many of our specific feedstocks have very high-value biological and chemical properties and much of that value could be lost through "bulk processing" of organics. There was a tension between allowing the private sector to dictate technology development / feedstock decisions and the need for public sector / policy support to ensure the "highest and best use" approach for organic materials and to make sure that sustainability objectives are being achieved. Co-product development was a common theme of responses, ranging from an interest in increasing the profitability of technologies by producing higher value products as well as the potential to focus on meeting in-state agricultural demand for fertilizers, etc. from organic "wastes".
What policies do agencies and universities need to have in place to support technology transfer from the laboratory to pilot and commercial implementation?
The panel focused on concerns about appropriate, regional policies that support rather than hinder the development and deployment of technology in a way that meets multiple objectives. The concern of appropriate scale, and the deployment of technology that meets multiple objectives (energy, products, GHG mitigation, rural economic development / job creation, etc.) might require special considerations at the state level that are not likely to happen federally. There was a comment that smaller facilities are more difficult to permit in the current structure, because of costs, knowledge base and investment risk. There was also discussion about ensuring consistency of policy through regions of the state. There were recommendations that we create policies that "levelize the economics" of some technologies in order to achieve the environmental goals that we have.
Another set of comments suggested that our "competition" for commercialization of technologies out of the lab is actually Europe. The European countries have been far more deliberate about investing in R&D and the commercialization of technology -- and currently it is much less risky to adopt technology from Europe than it is to adopt technology from US universities / research labs. The state should focus on improving the technology transfer capacity of the research universities. University faculty are going to work on problems / technologies they can get funding to work on. In order to increase the focus on tech transfer, there needs to be an incentive structure that encourages it.
A concluding suggestion was made that captured both the tech transfer and scale concerns from this discussion was that the state might develop a "Small and Risky Bioenergy Projects Administration" Funding pool – that could be directed toward Research, Development and Deployment of technologies in the state.
Strategic Investments Discussion
An interactive panel discussion with the audience will discuss what investments / strategic decisions state agencies and university scientists should be making to expedite development of "organic waste to fuels" technologies?
Discussion Summary
From your perspective, what are the unresolved issues around feed-stocks and process technology that must be addressed?
The panel addressed two primary concerns: feedstock competition and the importance of focusing on high-value co-product development rather than commodity fuel / energy production. Feedstock competition was of particular interest to the commercial participants. A first concern was the level of investment risk for facilities deploying technologies is high if they are feedstock competition increases. A second concern was that many of our specific feedstocks have very high-value biological and chemical properties and much of that value could be lost through "bulk processing" of organics. There was a tension between allowing the private sector to dictate technology development / feedstock decisions and the need for public sector / policy support to ensure the "highest and best use" approach for organic materials and to make sure that sustainability objectives are being achieved. Co-product development was a common theme of responses, ranging from an interest in increasing the profitability of technologies by producing higher value products as well as the potential to focus on meeting in-state agricultural demand for fertilizers, etc. from organic "wastes".
What policies do agencies and universities need to have in place to support technology transfer from the laboratory to pilot and commercial implementation?
The panel focused on concerns about appropriate, regional policies that support rather than hinder the development and deployment of technology in a way that meets multiple objectives. The concern of appropriate scale, and the deployment of technology that meets multiple objectives (energy, products, GHG mitigation, rural economic development / job creation, etc.) might require special considerations at the state level that are not likely to happen federally. There was a comment that smaller facilities are more difficult to permit in the current structure, because of costs, knowledge base and investment risk. There was also discussion about ensuring consistency of policy through regions of the state. There were recommendations that we create policies that "levelize the economics" of some technologies in order to achieve the environmental goals that we have.
Another set of comments suggested that our "competition" for commercialization of technologies out of the lab is actually Europe. The European countries have been far more deliberate about investing in R&D and the commercialization of technology -- and currently it is much less risky to adopt technology from Europe than it is to adopt technology from US universities / research labs. The state should focus on improving the technology transfer capacity of the research universities. University faculty are going to work on problems / technologies they can get funding to work on. In order to increase the focus on tech transfer, there needs to be an incentive structure that encourages it.
A concluding suggestion was made that captured both the tech transfer and scale concerns from this discussion was that the state might develop a "Small and Risky Bioenergy Projects Administration" Funding pool – that could be directed toward Research, Development and Deployment of technologies in the state.