 Hi, we're going to get started, and we're going to be waiting for the afternoon announcement. I'm guessing so are the policies issued at the time of the school and the energy study of the student. Thank you for coming out this afternoon. Our topic this afternoon is what we're really excited to present, and it's building billions on biotronics. I'm delighted to also buy a new technology office, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, released a new report, going on a 2016 Building Time Report. Through these building time reports, the Department of Energy periodically assesses the ability of the United States to sustainably produce a building time variable of non-truid biotronics. The 2016 report will unpatch reports of new data and analyses, including feedback, such as algae and energy costs, and new costs analysis, and a significantly expandable and sustainable criteria. Today, we're going to touch on the sustainability criteria, but it will also be a significant focus along the two, which is expected to be where it is here. Maybe we'll also hear about how the 2016 Building Time Report furthers the Federal Biotronics Division. The Biotronics Division is led by the Biomass Research and Development Board, which is an inter-agency effort among seven agencies in the White House. According to the Biomass Foundation Board's projections, an annual supply of sustainable building times of sustainable biomass in the United States would provide 1.1 million direct jobs and contribute 200 to the new building annually to the economy. Utilizing this biomass would also reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 1.1 million dollars per year. Today, we're going to be able to deliver a show and a speech report, so the report is quite a long-tinked out, so we brought up a big copy of her. So I urge you to online because I have reports to learn more. I brought here an instance to mention that these reports are good. The work of dozens of individuals, both at D&E and in the USDA, as well as at EPA and other agencies, universities, industry, NGOs, and other stakeholders over the past several years. That said, these reports are on the end of the conversation on the Biotronics Division, but add additional depth to our understanding of how Biomass needs to meet multiple objectives to produce fuels, electricity, and bio-products to help the flow of greenhouse gas emissions domestically through these U.S. dependence on petroleum and the cost of global economic development. So first on this day, we're going to hear from Dr. Alison Dosnain. Dr. Dosnain is the program manager for advanced agile systems and feedstock supply and logistics for the Biotechnology Technology Office at the U.S. Department of Energy. Her areas of focus include terrestrial and agile feedstock research assessment, feedstock logistics, algae biology cultivation, feedstock conversion, as well as technical technology for the next several analyses. She also serves on the Biomass R&D program, and she co-chairs for Biomass R&D, and she is an interagency working group on feedstock logistics. Alison? All right. Thank you, Jesse. So as Jesse said, my name is Alison Dosnain. I oversee a couple of programs within the Bioenergy Technology Office, our algae program, as well as our feedstock supply and logistics program. And it's under the auspices of our feedstock program that I come to you today to talk to you about a recent release that we had last week of our 2016 Billion Ton Report. I'm speaking on behalf of a large team of researchers as well as other contributors to this report. Unfortunately, our primary project manager, Mark Ellis, was not able to be here today. He's at the Association of Ag and Biological Engineers Conference down in Florida. So I'm hoping to be able to answer any technical questions you might have, but we might have to save a few of those for his return. So as Jesse mentioned, the 2016 Billion Ton Report is the third in a series of reports that the Department of Energy started in 2005. The original report was focused on can the U.S. sustainably produce a billion tons of biomass annually? There wasn't a year associated with it or a cost associated with that biomass, but the infatic answer was yes, there is a potential nationally to produce a significant amount of biomass. About six years later in 2011, we released an update and we attached some costs associated with that biomass. We created some cost curves. I'll give a price point on how much biomass could be acquired at the farm gate. And we also dug a little deeper into a time associated with that. So in the 2030 timeframe, we identified over a million tons of biomass that could be produced within the U.S. annually. With this 2016 update, we added a little more detail to that, broke down the feedstocks into different types of energy crops, twistgrass and scandals and so forth, and took that cost projection from the farm gate to the edge of the buyer and primary. So I'll go into a little more detail about the 2016 report now. Over the course of doing many, many years of analysis, we really feel confident that there is enormous U.S. potential to produce biomass on the order of more than a billion tons annually. So every time we do this analysis, we get more confident in this number. We really feel that doing this kind of work supports commercialization in a lot of ways. We hear from our stakeholders that they get increased confidence from their investors as well as from the technology developers when they are able to dig into this analysis and look in an individual region what the potential could be for that region to produce biomass that could be converted to multiple end uses. With this report and the subsequent volume two that I'll speak of that's coming up hopefully later this year, we really wanted to outline a sustainable production and try to get at defining what sustainable might be. Of course, if we're going to deliver on this promise of an advanced energy future, we need to make sure that if we are relying upon biomass for multiple end uses, we're doing that in an environmentally appropriate way. And this is going to really ensure that clean energy solutions that we may develop are really viable in the long term. So for this 2016 report, we had a few specific research questions looking at, of course, the economic availability of that biomass at a given cost, how much biomass could we would be generated and demand to be produced. Also, what's the economic availability of that biomass all the way to a buyer refinery? Now the analysis is end use agnostic. We're not identifying specific end uses that that biomass may be used for. But you'll hear from Harry and Valerie a little bit about another set of work that used some of the billion ton results. But for this report, we did want to look at what is the cost associated with moving that biomass from the farm where it's grown to a buyer refinery. And again, for the first time included algae, as well as specifically called out miscanthus, switzgrass, energy cane, eucalyptus, and other dedicated energy crops with a little more granularity and looked at what the potential supply of those individual crops may be into the future. So here's a schematic of the biomass supply chain that helps to explain how the reports laid out. Now I have it up here, it's over 400 pages. It is, of course, available online and I'll speak to that in a minute. But we have several chapters here that are focused on the production side. So what's going on at the farm? We have individual chapters on herbaceous energy crops, as well as forest resources, waste, and algae. And then moving from that harvest to the buyer refinery, we have chapter six, which the title of that is actually do the buyer refinery, looking at the logistics costs. And then delivery and processing is also included here. We took a very kind of conservative and journalistic approach to pre-processing, densifying the biomass, pelletizing it, and looked at the costs associated with doing that. So some key messages from the report that I want to make sure that I get across to you is the 2016 billion ton report is really policy agnostic. The resource is not relying upon individual policies. It does not evaluate the impacts of potential new policies that may come online. And it's also not specific to any given end use. This billion ton resource that we talk about has... We've already met all of the needs for... ...before the additional potential is added on top. So we're making sure that we're prioritizing the existing needs for that biomass first, and evaluating the potential. We took this economic supplier approach, so we gave it a price point if there are, there's an amount of volume associated with that. We've tried to be very conservative with our assumptions on environmental sustainability and I'll detail a few of those for you as well. There are two volumes. The first, volume one, because it's last week, is really well-aligned and parallels our 2005 and 2011 reports in terms of an economic analysis of the resource potential. Our volume two report is going to look at what are the environmental benefits and implications of producing biomass annually. Look at the very clear, this is a tremendous effort. We have 65 offers and over 105 people that are acknowledged for being part of the report. Here's some of the contributors you can see here. We have federal agencies, environmental widows, national laboratories, Oak Ridge National Labs, the primary author of this report. They work closely with many other stakeholders and we have some private companies that participated as well. And multiple reviewers that participated in a workshop that we held last December. They came, they heard of our research approach. Some of our preliminary results gave us feedback and input when we were in the middle of drafting the report. We also had reviewers that went through a more final version of the document. You can see here, covering a wide variety of sectors as well as stakeholder interests and needs. We had over 300 comments from these reviewers and they were really largely positive along the whole timeline. Really analytically intensive, trying to put this kind of product together. I won't go deep into all the different models that we used, but just showing you that we had models that were helping with the analytics around the agricultural resource, the forestry resource. We had separate models for timber supply chains as well as looking at climate projections and of course that has a dramatic potential impact on energy crop yields as well as a logistics model, the SCM supply characterization model. Relying upon a lot of data for our baseline approach was utilizing the USDA agricultural baseline and forest service data. We utilized the current resource analysis was based upon EIA data as well as universities, primarily land-grant universities, to maintain 100 field trials of dedicated energy crops as well as corn stover. This has given us invaluable data to help us in our assumptions that show up in the Billion Ton Report about how these energy crops will grow in the field in a variety of geographies under different management conditions and how we can expect yields to improve over time as we move out into the future. Really important to have ground truth data when you put together an analysis like this. So probably no surprise to you that biomass is the largest source of domestic renewable energy. Our currently used resources in a 2014 time frame are about 365 million dry tons, primarily forestry and wood as well as corn grain, but municipal solid waste does make up a good percentage of that, about 30 million dry tons annually. And this has been the truth since 2003. Biomess has been the dominant source of the U.S. market, really exceeding hydroelectric generation. First generation ethanol, of course, really prompted corn grain production in the U.S. for that use. And we use about 10% renewables in the U.S., and about half of that is coming from biomass for transportation, industrial, and residential uses. So that's currently, but out into the future, you can see here, this is just a word cloud of our billion ton analysis for a 2040 time frame at $60 price point. Ms. Kanthus, which rests over, I mean, they're really dominating the feedstock supply mix out in a 2040 time frame. So we're really seeing that our basious energy crops in Stover are going to be significant leaders in the mix as we move forward. Forestry and waste resources, you can see they're showing up here, hardwood, softwood, mixedwood, paper and paperwork, all pretty large contributors to the mix. So this is just a map of that same time frame 2040. And every county in the U.S., over 300 of them in the lower 48 states are contributing to the biomass potential. And in this conservative case, this map shows about 826 million tons. This is supply per square mile. And anything you see in blue is equivalent to what would be needed to supply a 800,000 dry ton of your facility. So a good size via a binary. So that helps you to kind of identify where there is significant resources here. I want to point out $60 a ton is just a reference price. There's nothing magical about $60. That's just what we choose to use as an illustrative example of the resource. So the entire report as well as quite a lot of interactive features are available through the Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Framework. I strongly encourage you to go check it out. You can download individual chapters of the report. You can dig deep into some of the maps, turn on and turn off different feedstocks. Look at different timeframes and price points. If you do look at the actual hard copy of the report, you can see this monitor image up in the corner. Anywhere you see in the report, an icon of a monitor, that's where you can go into the KDF and dig deeper into the graphs and maps and interact with them and play around. So absolutely check out BioenergyKDF.net backslash billion ton. So a question I get a lot is, how does the 2016 report relate to the 2011 report? They're actually incredibly similar in their bottom line. The 2030 timeframe is where the 2011 report ended, and that's roughly equivalent on a volume basis to 2035 in the billion ton report. The only difference in between these two is about 20,000 tons, which is not really noticeable when you're talking about billions of tons. The differences are in currently used. So interestingly, in our 2016 report, we had about 11% increase in the currently used biomass number. And with energy crops, we're about 19% less in the 2016 report than we were in the 2011 report. So the five years between the two reports did not see that uptick in energy crop production that we were anticipating was going to happen when we put out the 2011 report. There's also quite a lot more waste feed stocks in the 2016 report than the 2011. But forestry really incredibly similar across the two scenarios. You can see here across the top, I have a base case scenario. That's more of a conservative yield improvement year over year, whereas in the 2016 high yield and BT2, which is our 2011 report, high yield, we're assuming a much more aggressive year over year yield improvement in the 2% to 3% a year increase. So now I'll just walk you through one of the supply curves to give you a sense. So this is our currently used biomass assessment. You can see here it's 365 million tons estimated out from 2017 onward. Then we add on top of that our waste resources. Pretty consistent out to 2040. Forest land resources, same here. Agricultural residues, taking more advantage of agricultural residues as we go out to 2040. And then energy crops. This is really where a lot of the action happens. So thinking back to that word cloud where we had those energy crops, we are estimating through this resource assessment that there is going to be a greater demand and market pull for energy crops as we move out into the future. So the production of biomass from energy crops will be much more significant in 2040 than it is today, which is almost negligible. So we're going up to about 160 million dry tons of switchgrass, 160 million dry tons of miscanthus, 45 million dry tons of poplar, 25 of willow, and so on. So these two scenarios that I've circled here, the 2017 as well as the 2040, these are the two scenarios that are going to be part of our volume two analysis, looking at the environmental implications. Let me see if I can go back and forth just so you can see. So this is base case and then the high yield. So looking at year-over-year yield improvements, you can see here how the changes are demonstrated looking at a 2040 time frame. The high yield case will also be a scenario in volume two. So you can see from these two maps that the supply is really varying spatially as well as temporarily. Not year-over-year, just increasing the amount of biomass. The biomass is actually moving to different parts of the country. So different regions of the country are showing more and more of an increase in biomass. The south central region really shows a tremendous increase in the biomass potential as we go out to 2040. Now I've been talking a lot about potential, so I thought I'd dig into that a little bit just to make sure that you understand. So there's really resource potential, which is the physical constraints. Then we have technical potential. So is there already land use there that you wouldn't be able to grow biomass on? Topographic constraints. You don't want to grow biomass in certain slopes. The slope is too steep. You wouldn't want to grow the biomass in that region. Economic potential. So at a given technology cost, what is the ability to access the biomass? If there's really more for it, you're going to create more of a demand for the biomass, and then market potential. So market potential is reliant upon policies and regulations and investor activity. The Billion Time Report doesn't touch market potential. It is agnostic in that way. These three analyses that the Bioenergy Technologies Office has put out really focus in that economic and technical potential for biomass. So in order to realize this Billion Time Vision, we're going to need to see both supply push and market pull. So let me tell you what I mean by that. You can see in 2015, out to 2040, we have maps of the U.S. at a given price point. And these are really our ability to increase the amount of biomass at a given price point and really reliant upon our technology improvement, yield improvement, something that's going to increase the amount of supply that you can access at a given price in the first row here, $30 a dry ton. Another way to increase the amount of biomass that's available is to add value to that biomass so people will pay more money for it. That's really called market pull. So when that biomass can be used as a value co-product, people will pay more money for that biomass. So you can see here down in the lower right corner, that is our kind of Billion Time Vision. It requires both a supply push, so investing in research and development, crop improvement, best management practices, really increasing that supply and also a market pull, creating, adding inherent value to that biomass demand from other markets, high value co-products, and so on, all they're needed if we want to realize the full national potential. So key conclusions from volume one, and then I will stop there having given, getting the hook. We have potential for more than a billion tons of biomass as early as 2030, but we up to 2040, more and more and more potential can be added as we realize yield improvements and so on. We identified new insights into accessing the biomass, advanced supply systems that could be developed to make it less expensive to move the biomass to the buyer refinery. About half of our potential biomass that we identified can be produced and delivered at less than $84 a dry ton. So that's roughly equivalent to a $3 a gallon of gasoline equivalent, which is our goal within our office to develop technologies towards that goal. So the feed stack portion of that is about $84 a dry ton. Forest resources, regionally specific, algae, a lot of potential, but also very expensive. So we need to have resources, research, as well as technology development to bring down the cost of algal production in order to realize that potential. And of course the supply is really contingent on how much people are willing to pay for it. The more people are willing to pay, the more biomass will be produced, simple supply and demand. So I will just stop there. We have more time. We can go a little deeper into volume two. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Allison. I know it's sort of difficult to summarize a over 400 page report in about 20 minutes. So that 40,000 foot view is very appreciated and it's really interesting to hear about, at least from my perspective, the new feedstocks, the potential in them in terms of miscanthus, switchgrass in terms of other environmental services that those feedstocks could potentially provide as well. So we're going to switch gears now. We're going to hear from Dr. Valerie Reid and she's going to discuss a little more on the billion ton vision and how the report that Allison just discussed with us kind of fosters and forwards the vision. So Dr. Reid is the deputy director for the bioenergy technologies office within the Department of Energy. Dr. Reid holds a PhD in biochemistry from Georgetown University and has been working with biofuels in the bioeconomy for 23 years. She currently splits her time between the DOE and the USDA senior, and acts as USDA senior advisor for bioenergy in the office of the chief scientist. Through this role, she's helping to build stronger collaborations between USDA and DOE and furthering the goal of creating a national bioeconomy. Dr. Reid. Let's just move this forward to get out of hers. Well, she's doing that. I'll just give you a brief overview. Ironically, the speaker that's going to follow me, Harry Bombas, is someone that I have spent a lot of time with in the last year. So I'll just point out that in my role as senior advisor to the office of the chief scientist over at USDA, that actually was a job share for what was like a job switch. I went over to USDA to help build better relationship there between USDA and DOE, and Harry went over to DOE to do exactly the same thing. So we spent the last year really doing each other's jobs, learning more about each other's agencies, and I think it's really led to a stronger relationship between our two agencies, which I hope will be able to show you through the next set of slides. So I'm going to be describing a little bit more about what the bioeconomy initiative or bioeconomy vision really is, and what it is that we're trying to do. So in a report that was commissioned by USDA in July 2014, which was entitled Why Bio-Based Opportunities in the Emerging Bioeconomy, the bioeconomy was defined as a global industrial transition to a sustainably utilizing renewable, aquatic, and terrestrial biomass resources for the production of energy, intermediates, and final products that would ultimately have economic, environmental, social, and national security benefits. The report goes on to really describe a need for continued investment from the various agencies involved in developing a bio-based infrastructure that will ensure that the economics of the bio-based feedstocks with existing petroleum-based feedstocks. In a report then to Congress that followed in May 2015, which was entitled An Economic Impact Analysis of the US Bio-Based Products Industries, we see an examination and quantification of the effects of the US bio-based products industry on economics and jobs. And essentially what that report states is that in 2013 alone, America's existing bio-based industry already contributed 4 million jobs and $369 billion to our economy. The report findings include estimates that for each job that is directly tied to bio-based products industry, there's an additional 1.64 jobs generated in other sectors of the economy. So what that means is if we had 1.5 million jobs directly tied to the bio-based industry in 2013, we had 1.1 million indirect jobs in related industries. And more importantly, another 1.4 million jobs which are called induced jobs and those are related to the purchase of the goods and services basically being produced through this bio-based industry. Further, the study reports that a minimum of 300 million gallons of petroleum is replaced already by this existing bio-based industry. And that's like taking 200,000 cars off the road each year. So clearly, we have a bio-economy of sorts. The use of these biomass resources is already supporting our nation's economy. And yet we know, based on what Allison just presented, that there's so much more that we could be doing with the resources that we have. So the first question we have to ask ourselves is when we're trying to develop or enhance a bio-economy is really, is there going to be enough supply of biomass? What is the resource we're dealing with here? And will it be enough to meet the research and development needs that will displace significant amounts of products and fuels and attract a major investment from the private sector? And of course, we believe the initial answer is yes. From the 2005 billion-ton study where we first saw that there was the potential for a billion tons of biomass through 2011 where the study goes on to add costs to that biomass and really indicates to us what might be available at what cost structure. We feel firmly that there is a billion tons of biomass resource available simply to turn into fuels and biobased chemicals while not impacting the existing markets for food, feed, and fiber. So overall, this confirms our desire to move forward with an enhanced bio-economy. Okay, so this graphic, I'm going to go over these quickly because you've seen a lot of biomass stuff. But this is just used to help bring that point home. On the 2011 data, this first graphic shows what was essentially available at about $80 a dry ton in 2012. Okay, using the data and the analyses of the 2011 billion-ton study. And as you can see, there are some strong scenarios in the Midwest, of course, where you might expect a lot of biomass to be produced, but also in the Northeast and the Northwest where we have a lot of woody biomass available that could be converted into various products. In this next slide, and this really is the crutch of Allison's presentation, we see quite a bit more when we take projections out to 2030 and we actually change the cost to $60 a dry ton. This, again, is still based on the 2011 analysis. We are working towards updating these charts with the 2016 analysis, but it further confirms for us, as Allison pointed out, that there's quite a bit of biomass and that it impacts many, many regions of the country. So this is really a national bio-economy effort that we're working towards based on the resource. So who really is behind this bio-economy enhancement, this vision, this initiative that we're talking about? Well, the Biomass Research and Development Board is an interagency board that was created through the enactment of the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, which was meant to coordinate the programs within and among departments and agencies of the federal government for the purpose of promoting the use of a bio-based industrial products, by one, maximizing the benefits derived from federal grants and assistance, and two, bringing coherence to the federal strategic planning. The board is co-chaired by senior officials of the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as the Department of Agriculture, and it does consist of several other agencies and senior decision makers. These agencies include Transportation, Department of Interior, Defense, EPA, NSF, and of course the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President. It has a very diverse membership, but the board facilitates the coordination among these federal government agencies so that they can have a positive impact on the level of research, development, deployment of biofuels and bio-products. Okay, so the first product of this biomass research and development board activity was entitled the Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy, and this was published in February and is now available on our website, but this report was prepared to emphasize the significant potential of taking our existing bioeconomy and really growing it to a stronger, more influential activity through an increased production of biofuels, bio-products, and bio-power. It was intended to really educate the public on the wide-ranging and already existing federally funded activities underway through the agencies that I just mentioned, and these activities cover things like research and development, as well as demonstration and end-use market activities that help to enhance the end-use markets. The agencies are focused on ensuring, of course, that this is a sustainable effort, so sustainability is a key impact within the Bioeconomy Federal Activities Report, and there's careful attention being paid across the various agencies to things like greenhouse gas reduction, as well as water and soil quality. But what's important, as well, within this document is that it introduces a vision for the future. This recognizes that there is a lot more to do, but that if we can accelerate and coordinate our activities better, we could actually triple the size of today's bioeconomy. Here are the vision and the goal statements as they're crafted in the document. The goal of this initiative is really to concentrate and remove the barriers that still stand in our way to really developing the billion tons of biomass that Allison described to you so that we can do this cost-effectively and sustainably and build our economy around those factors. We take a look at the integrated supply chain all the way from feedstocks through to the end-products and look at those things that will be accepted into the market and maximize the environmental, economic, and social benefits to the nation. And here is the vision, as described in the Federal Activities Report. I'm really going to stop and not spend any time on this, but it's probably the most interesting slide in my entire collection, because this is the subject of the next speaker, Harry's presentation. Okay. So I'm just teasing you a little with that one. The FARB actually does allow the reader to take a look at where the various agencies have activities. And as you can see from the dots across this graphic, there are, you know, various areas where collaboration between agencies makes a lot of sense. Certainly, you don't want everyone doing feedstock supply work to be doing it in a vacuum. So this report helps focus the public's attention and decision-making attention on where we need to collaborate more. And so that report was published in February, as I mentioned, but we didn't stop there, so we took that vision, we took it out to the public, and we crafted a number of listening sessions with stakeholder communities. We held five different listening sessions to hit multiple different stakeholder groups. We met CEOs and entrepreneurs from industry at the Advanced Bioeconomy Leadership Conference. We went to the International Biomass Conference in Expo in Charlotte, where we talked to feedstock and logistics suppliers. We went to Bioworld Congress, where we talked to leaders in the industrial biotechnology area. And we went to the 38th Symposium for Biotechnology on Fuels and Chemicals, where we really focused in on the research community including academia. And to ensure we didn't miss anybody, we held a webinar so that anybody who didn't get to one of those venues could certainly add to our listening sessions and help us understand better what we were trying to do. These sessions were set to really gauge the state of the technology. We know a lot about what's going on in the bioeconomy, but we recognized that the stakeholders know even more, and we wanted to hear where they felt the bioeconomy was and what was missing, where were the gaps and what were the challenges they were facing on a day-to-day basis. We gathered this data in a number of technical barrier areas. And this is just an example for you to take a look at, where we did an impact and likelihood analysis basically to enable us to prioritize real actions that we could take in order to overcome the challenges and barriers that we faced. The document itself is not quite ready for publication. We had hoped to publish it last week, but it's going through final review and concurrence, and it will be available in the next week or so. So we want you to take the time and come to our websites and look for that document and see what is it we're really trying to overcome here. But it is the second in a series of three documents with the third document being the true action plan. This is where the federal agencies will take all of that data provided by you as well as other stakeholders in our arena and convert it into real actions that the agencies should be taking. We're also working with the states. I skipped over that slide briefly, but we're trying to engage the states and the regions to actually make commitments as well in supporting this bio-economy vision, so that ultimately in the end, we can be successful. So I will leave you with a thank you, and these are the people in this room who are involved with that, but there are many, many more. Thank you, Valerie. It's great to see how all this work is tied in so many different agencies, not just the folks in this room, but again so many different agencies and actors that are working to make it happen. So as Valerie mentioned, she gave the teaser for the next presentation. Next up is Dr. Harry Bamas. Dr. Bamas is the director of the Office of Energy Policy and New Uses at the USDA. He recently served a detail to the DOE's as Valerie had mentioned, where he served as a senior executive advisor to the director. He chairs the bio-economy coordinating committee at the USDA, which coordinates renewable energy, heat, and power, and biobase related activities among USDA agencies. His office is responsible for coordinating with DOE and EPA on issues related to the implementation of the renewable fuel standard as well. Dr. Bamas is also a lead member of the biomass research and development board and co-chairs the board's analysis committee. Dr. Bamas. Thank you, Jessica. It's really a pleasure to be here and hopefully you can see that we're kind of building momentum with these three presentations and the work that's being done by the Biomass Research and Development Board, that attitude I think is very exciting in moving forward with the bio-economy. So with that, let me start with Valerie's last slide. Okay. Let me start with Valerie's most interesting slide, and right now I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but I want to reiterate something that Allison said is that the work that we're presenting to you today really reflects the work of many, and I'm just a messenger today. You know, I've had the opportunity, the privilege to work with these people, but I'm just a messenger today presenting this. But what we have here is what we call some headline news, and it's really looking forward. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this right now, but I want to identify some of the opportunities that we think would benefit our economy, our nation by growing the bio-economy. So it's a bit of a look forward. But what I do want to do is give you a focus on items three through six here in this outline methodology and analysis. I mean, those numbers I just showed you they're what people want to see, and what's it really mean? Allison says it's a billion tons of biomass. Whoopie wow, what are we going to do with it? Valerie puts a vision together. What can we do with it? What we've tried to do here is to measure and come up with some metrics as to what can be done with it. Valerie presented a snapshot of what, 2013, the bio-based economy was $369 billion. A job multiplier of 1.64 for every job created. Greenhouse gas reductions. So now we want to look forward and say, okay, if we grow this bio-economy, what can we do? And that's what I really want to focus on is how we did some of these measurements, some of the issues that we faced and overcome. This you've seen already it's biomass research and development board and the vision or the definition of what the bio-economy is. I'm not going to spend time here. Here again this capsulizes very quickly what Allison and Valerie just did. We've got biomass. What do we do with it? But what I do want to reiterate and Valerie said this as well, is that we're looking at the incremental use of biomass. Something above and beyond our food use, our feed use, and some of our industrial use that goes into these food and feed areas. So we're looking at biomass that's not really competing with food. Okay, so that's very important here to understand. And we're also looking at producing this biomass in a sustainable fashion. Two key points that we can't possibly overemphasize. Okay, so when we look at feed stocks, we're looking at ag residues, forest residues. Oops, let me catch up on my notes here. Bad habits. So we're looking at basically our feed stock classes are ag residues, forest residues, energy crops, waste resources, and algae. We're looking at biophysical characteristics and productivity and growth. Plants grow at different rates. You fertilize them, they grow faster, you water them, they grow faster. Forest resource and demand scenarios we incorporate. And we're looking at land allocation as to what land are we growing things on, what land aren't we growing things on, what's shifting. Okay, and I want to point out this is not indirect land use. It's allocating land that we have between different production alternatives. Okay, and then as Allison said in hers, we're looking at the roadside delivery of biomass based on supply curves. And we're also considering logistics and transportation costs to the bio refineries or the integrated bio refineries. One thing, any analysis contains its specific sets of assumptions. And I'll get into that a little bit, but the other thing I want to point out, this analysis is not a predictive analysis. It's not really a behavioral type analysis. It doesn't look at some of the markets in depth as you trade off energy uses between natural gas or gasoline or ethanol or any type of biofuel. But it is an illustrated. It's meant to be illustrated. If we use this biomass in this way, these technologies in these end-juice markets, this is what we expect. Okay. So the tools that we used, like Allison, we relied on a lot of existing data. We couldn't possibly generate it. We relied on USDA. We relied on energy information administration. We relied on some of the technology and conversion work that is done in the veto office. Landfill methane numbers. I mean, you can read those numbers as well as I can in those sources as well as I can. And also, we relied on a number of models. But we aggregated all this information into a fairly massive spreadsheet that it's really a sort of an accounting model that we've generated here. But we rely on polysys, which is the model used to generate county-level supply curves for biomass. The foreseen model, which looks at alternative forestry utilization, logistics model. And, you know, we prepared this analysis. One thing I would like to point out is that we did develop a manuscript that we've sent to a journal. And that journal is the bio-products, I'm sorry, bio-tools, bio-products, and bio-refining journal. We're waiting to hear back from them. We expect to have an answer on the journal as a journal publication in the next week or two. But again, what we tried to do is start with current data. We tried to make it as consistent as possible as we looked across various sectors. And we utilized our modeling capabilities or capacity, if you will, to generate some of that, or to derive our analysis. So, if we look at our expanded analysis, this model also allows us to do some sensitivity analysis. What I've shown you here in that map slide is just one analysis. But we're basically starting with our current year of 2014. We have the business as usual case. The business as usual is $40 per ton. Allison's baseline or reference case in the billion-ton study is 60. So that's what we use as our billion-ton availability. We're looking at the same price that Allison was referring to in a video update. In our product distribution, chemicals, fuels, wood pellets, heat and power. And under the fuels, we have aviation fuel. We have diesel. We have gasoline. And this is a little more detail. But what we're looking at are the types of feedstocks that we're using. This is a pointer. So here, this top lot, that doesn't show up very well. But in your handout, hopefully you have it and you can see it, those first five or six feedstocks are agricultural based. You'll see corn grain. And you see that little blue line and that's really our business as usual case. And 125.2 million metric or a million tons of corn equals about 5 billion bushels. And that's currently what we're using. About 5 billion bushels in the production of gasoline. These numbers here to the right of the bars. Lower quarter of the chart. Energy crops and and I gotta ignore that. Energy crops and algae are there. We currently don't really use energy crops to produce fuels or algae right now. So we're expecting that to come in in the future. As Allison said, energy crops we really expect to be gangbusters later in the century, 2040. Whoops. Okay, on the output side these are the outputs that we're looking at. The fuels, again you can see here what we're looking at is about 50 million gallons of biofuels. On a gasoline equivalent basis that's about 44 billion gallons. We're looking at 85 million kilowatt hours to being generated. We're looking at close to 50 billion tons of biobased products including wood pellets and renewable chemicals and the like. So again we think the benefits and again we can do different sensitivity analysis but there's revenue gains, direct employment numbers. In our analysis we think there's direct jobs created about a little over 1.1 billion or million jobs using that multiplier of 1.64. You can do the math there. We're looking at greenhouse gas reductions of what we think are the order of 400 million tons a year. Also we can look at land allocation and consider in volume two and volume one of the billion ton study water. Quick summary this isn't predictive. This is what could be a potential with the allocation and the assumptions we're looking at transitioning to a low carbon society or economy if you will. We're waiting to hear from the publisher about the article we submitted and we'll continue to work towards the bioeconomy initiative as Valerie pointed out. And these are just a number of the folks that have been involved in this work over time. USDA DOE EPA the National Labs, the Forest Service Consultants Department of Transportation so there's been a lot of effort supporting this and bringing us to where we are now. Back to the headline news again we're looking at reductions in greenhouse gases of 400 million 25% market penetration in the fuels which would include vehicle products of the order of 50 billion pounds a year job creation economic not to mention role development. With that was a quick quick run through. Thank you. Great thank you Harry. We're going to open it up to question and answer right now and I'm actually going to leave your headline news up there for anyone who wants to take a look at that while we're discussing. I have a quick question for all of you we talked a lot today about the opportunity and the potential but can you discuss maybe what some of the potential challenges are in terms of scaling up a US bio economy. Well I'll give you a teaser for the report that's going to come out I've been doing this for 23 years and honestly you're not going to find anything that you don't already know is a challenge but they still are challenges for example that bring the cost down on the fuels and what are some of the technical advances we need. Do we need hail Mary type technology or will slow and steady biotechnology continued development help solve the problem. That's an area of concern. There's also the scale up risk and financing. These are first of the kind technologies that the financial community is very nervous about putting out there. One of the roles that department of energy in the past is helping to bridge that gap and get some first facilities built. We're using a lessons learned scenario internally to be able to look at what worked and what doesn't work when you're scaling up these types of technologies. That's an area that remains a barrier. Many of our stakeholders wanted to speak towards policy. We as a biomass research and development board won't be tackling policy but there are a number of policy barriers as well that could facilitate enabling this if we could overcome those. That's kind of a general view. I'd just like to add a couple things. One is certainty is really something that the investment community would relish policy. But the other uncertainty out there is markets. Things happen in the very short term that create issues as to moving forward. I don't think anyone saw the rapid decline in oil prices over the past couple of years. As an economist consumers tend to go for the cheaper fuel and right now with low oil prices that puts biofuels at a disadvantage. That's one issue is current market events that should be viewed as temporary roadblocks. I think part of the benefits of developing the bioeconomy we haven't really put a value to yet such as greenhouse gas reduction. We know it's an issue, we know it's a problem but we haven't really put a good value to that. So I think there's some things that we need to assess as we move forward in looking at what the values and the benefits are. I just want to draw attention to the real risks that reside in the biomass supply chains. I think that our current second generation and beyond biorefineries are seeing firsthand that just because you build it doesn't mean that it will come and that's something that we have really come to appreciate through watching these biorefineries come online is the tremendous challenges that exist when you look at feedstock variability trying to create a robust supply system that will give high quality and low cost feedstock to a conversion process. So there's a lot of research that still needs to be done around feedstock supply systems, stabilizing biomass, getting the water out of it so that it's cheaper to move and also making sure that the composition of it is consistent and appropriate so that it can be converted. I think these are all challenges that are maybe underappreciated when companies decide to invest in a technology. They think they can figure out the conversion technology and they're good to go but there's a lot of challenges around the feedstock in the supply. Great. So I'm going to open it up to general questions. We have one in the back here in the red tie. When technology advances as far as how do we decide where it's going to come from? When facilities because people just don't want them like either in areas like areas that are just past that level, not just in areas that are protected but in areas where people don't want them there and people use it and how do you go about finding issues with that? I'm going to quickly repeat the question just for recording it online but the question is basically what are some of the more social aspects in terms of recalcitrance or how do you deal with kind of perception and issues on that front? Sure. Well, algae is great because it is incredibly diverse. It can grow in a lot of different conditions and really all you need for it is a lot of sunlight and some nutrients and it can be grown in an open pond type of environment but it can also be grown in a closed system, photo bioreactors where you're actually growing the biomass vertically in many cases. So we're seeing there's tremendous potential for algae in areas that are not highly populated but do have a lot of sun like the desert southwest they do have access to saline groundwater there's of course lots and lots of sun and the potential to even use algae to clean up wastewater and is something that we're exploring within the bioenergy technologies office. So that's one way to get at some of the social aspects is to create side value to putting in a bioenergy facility. It is cleaning up the salt and sea for instance. I know the state of California has some interest in looking at an algae facility to address that tremendous environmental issue that they're facing or municipal wastewater we have some projects there where they're harvesting algae to convert to biofuels. So I think that that's one way to approach it look at production systems that have some side benefits as well. And I'll just add that I brought it up at our side that we're beginning to work with the states and the regions that what they could be doing at their level to help promote this industry because really having a state that is going to take away some of the barriers of citing a facility, permitting bringing it along because of the economic value to that state can go a long way in terms of that public perception. But I wanted to point out a barrier we didn't mention that really came through loud and clear in the listening sessions and that really is public perception. We get a lot of bad rap through miscommunication of data from much larger entities than ourselves who have the funding to put out commercials that can mislead the public. And so a lot of people look at what we're trying to do as really negative to the environment. That's an aspect that we really need to tackle in terms of getting the real data out there in ways that people can quickly understand it and see the benefits of these things for their communities. So that's another way to help pave the way to welcoming these things into communities. Great. In the back here blue shirt, red tie. And what we're concerned about is that if we have gas then it generally is liable to this analysis and play a part of our work on bioenergy to make it clear that we regard it as a huge biological material for electric generation as the first last fuel on a huge biological material. And our concern particularly is that the analysis that we're making is significant in the amount of the work that we're doing. Yet there have been a number of studies that have been passed over the years showing that when you burn wood for electricity it's most common source of bioenergy. We have significant increase in carbon dioxide pollution and they've decorated it to move for a third of the process of transmission. And probably some of the national studies and animal studies on the ground on the use of bioenergy watching the use of it so I was wondering what is the basis of the statement that generally we can be in our gas and we can benefit in one of these studies about bioenergy in the United States. So the question is particularly on greenhouse gases in terms of woody biomass and looking at sort of the data that went into the report on that. Sure. Well I actually do have a slide if we want to pull it up but you could go to say about the constraints in BT16 forestry. I'm going to talk you through a little bit. I think that there may have been a misunderstanding. So within the billion ton 2016 we actually did not assume that we were going to be harvesting more than an annual growth rate. We've put in a lot of constraints on the uses building no roads only residue removal at an acceptable rate no removing of biomass in wet areas to make sure there wasn't soil compaction best management practices were assumed so there would not be in this resource potential analysis there wasn't harvesting that was exceeding any annual growth rate and of course that is including protection of any kind of forested areas national parks, roadless areas anything like that. So I don't think that we would be assuming that there would be clear cutting beyond an annual growth rate which seemed to be what you were implying. I can tell you a few slides in the Congress last year we said that we still have an increase in public pollution that person will look at to see if there can be no growth in this project and how do we look at it? We worked really closely with the Forest Service and professional foresters to make sure that our assumptions around particularly forested areas in Timberlands were appropriate and so I feel fairly confident that we were not overstating when we talked about greenhouse gas reduction potential. Yeah, I would just add I went through it quickly but if you look at the slide that I had out there I think it was my ninth slide looking at feedstock availability you won't find it. The story is short I mean we're not looking at clear cutting or harvesting a lot of woody biomass we're relying primarily on woody residues if you will. And that coupled with the fact that we're looking at advanced technologies for the use reduces in our opinion the greenhouse gas issue that you raise and our total number there is 400 million or 400 million ton reduction in greenhouse gases. It's not just from the woody biomass it's fuel use as well as bio-based products along those lines so it's across the board reduction. And I just will add that while that's a snapshot putting so much biomass going to power to fuels and to chemicals really we have to look at the best use of biomass scenarios and that's an area that we can help to support through developing best use scenario models that look at where the economic benefit is for biomass should those woody residues be going to power when we have many other renewable ways of producing power when they could be going to much higher value products or liquid transportation fuels for example for the jet fuel industry which has no other alternatives. So again a lot of that has to be under consideration. We could certainly spend a lot of time talking about forestry resources so I think we will see if there are other questions about other aspects of the report on the end here. Okay the question is a great question is on water use in terms of the data looking at the total bio-economy looking at water use and sustainability. So are you asking about consumption of water use? So we are our sustainability program within the bio-energy technologies office has a water analysis portfolio and water quantity is something that we are going to be focusing on for volume two. So I can't give you one number for the whole billion tons but generally we use numbers around one gallon of water consumed for gallon of fuel produced for a corn ethanol facility and then four gallons of water consumed for gallon of ethanol produced for an irrigated situation. Now that is the current state and we are developing new technologies to really reduce the consumption of water to produce biofuels and most of that is taking place within the conversion process unless you are looking at an irrigated feedstock for the billion ton study we did not assume any of the bio-energy feedstocks were irrigated. Past establishment. Yeah I was only going to reiterate or state that if you are irrigating a crop it is not going to go to fuel production it is going to go to food production. Secondly USDA has a number of programs particularly in our natural resource conservation services and some of our research agencies as well that are looking at more efficient use of water and so I think the development of new best management practices additional modifications or improvements in the seed stock etc. Sorghum requires less water than corn so I think some of these switching technologies being adapted for other crops and other biomass actually will help to reduce or at least not make it go away but help with the water assessment. And I'm just going to add one last thing you may have heard of the food energy water nexus often called few and that's really a look at how these things interrelate with each other because we can't produce more biomass when we might be facing a global food crisis. We have to consider what does that mean in terms of energy use and what does that mean in terms of water and NSF has really taken kind of a charge and lead at this in developing some innovative research and development activities and has brought agencies together as well as Department of Energy under the energy water nexus concept that our secretary promotes. So these are our relatively new focus areas in which there will be a lot more research and development in the next couple of years to get to those questions and answers. And I believe climate change is going to be a significant focus of volume two. Is that correct? Well actually within volume one we had to include some climate trending to be able to evaluate what potential yields might be into the future. But yes there will be a chapter in volume two dedicated to climate. Okay great. Other questions in the strike sure. So the question is on what are some of the challenges in terms of energy crops and I also think for the uninitiated it may be worth also just a brief explanation of what what do we mean when we say energy crops. So if you want to answer that question for me as well. Well you know what we you know we you know what we are talking about is the well you know what we we've identified certain crops as as energy like energy cane or miscanthus or jatropha and you know it's really a chicken and egg argument right now in my opinion because we don't have the facilities in place that are really pulling or demanding those energy crops for say a low-secure advanced fuel production. Secondly the economics particularly with the relatively high food prices or crop prices at least a couple years ago you know just made it much more difficult for a farmer to say I want to take a chance on producing jatropha or you know perennial grasses or something that's other than a well-defined market and so you know we've got you know Allison in her presentation she talked about demand side we need that demand pull for the feedstocks as well as as those end-juice markets and so right now we just don't have it and so as a consequence farmers farmers aren't stupid they're going to produce what they can can produce to make make a profit. Okay great and I there is a program at USDA the biomass crop assistance program through the 2014 farm bill but it is a very small program and it's to aid farmers in growing these energy crops that can not only be a biomass a bioenergy biofuels feedstock but can provide all these multiple environmental benefits on the end here we have a question okay so it was a two-part question the first part was kind of are you planning on looking at the impact of fertilizer going out and then also are you looking at potential international cooperation particularly with developing countries okay I think in our basic research programs at USDA we are always looking at ways to improve productivity ways to improve the quality ways to do or best management practices you know so I think we're always considering fertilizer as it impacts productivity now in our analysis here we've assumed that that continued well USDA's baseline the productivity gains are expected to continue for the next at at infant item so implicitly we are including you know the impact of fertilizer as we go forward and look at some of these where we may see some breakthroughs is that maybe in the fertilizer technology that we're looking at in terms of how well does it help corn or soybeans or any other food crop how can that be applied to some of these energy crops or other types of biomass that we're considering here once again I think once the value of these other feed stocks that we're talking about starts to be realized then you start to attract research dollars lots of things happen the second part of your question international cooperation or collaboration I think that's underway I believe that there are I just came back from a conference in Europe and one of the presenters indicated that globally I think there are like something in the order of 25 countries globally relatively small given the total number of countries in the world but that have some type of bioeconomy program underway without a doubt I think collaboration will begin to emerge and become more important in some respects with existing organizations UN FAO the global biofuels economic partnership I believe some of that collaboration cooperation has already I do a lot of work with the OECD and their science and technology policy we're talking bioeconomy there and that's a global form so yes I do think it's happening the benefits I'm sure there's collaboration and coordination going on it's helping I think but we're really at an early stage I mean that's my assessment I'm in fertilizer utilization in dedicated energy crop production is an open area where more research is needed I mentioned the regional feedstock partnership program that was seven years of 100 field trials a lot of that work was trying to identify what are the best management practices for these crops how do we make sure that any chemicals that are being applied are being fully utilized by the crops because anything that runs off is environmental consequences but it also is lost money and we want to make these bioenergy crop production systems cost effective so I strongly encourage you if you're interested in learning more about the regional feedstock partnership program join our listserv and you'll get an email hopefully in the next week or two with the summary report that includes all the information about the trials the different application rates erosion and what the kind of synthesis of that work was great other questions in the middle here so the question is on food waste and organics waste and things like that well I'm going to say it's not completely excluded it's not in the billion ton update as far as available biomass but in the last maybe five years or so the Department of Energy has been working on a wet waste technology scenario which looks at the various wastes that are available they're usually in smaller quantities and often tied to things like food and industrial waste that's being produced by existing industries as well as wastewater treatment facilities and those types of waste sources and the technologies for conversion are a little bit different but there have been some breakthrough technologies in wet waste conversion that enables us to reduce the energy inputs to drying the waste so that it could be utilized as part of the process stream so while they're not a very large impact type of a feedstock I do believe they will be part of a mix in various where facilities are cited to be able to overcome some of the technical barriers to that very wet waste so food processing waste was included yes it was I had to go back and check and make sure fat soils and greases rice straw, yard trimmings citrus and non-citrus residues the gas, cotton gin trash lots of different types of waste were included and then of course construction and demolition waste so any waste resources they really emerge in high concentration urban areas and that's really where you're going to see if you dig into the report in the waste chapter a potential for these waste resources I just want to add a point of clarification the fact that we say we're looking at incremental biomass production so we're not saying that food waste after the fact that it's been ag commodity has been processed and whatever wasn't utilized discarded that waste is eligible to be a feedstock but we're not taking from the productive capacity of US agriculture to specifically divert that land say to producing a feedstock that's not producing something that would go into the food system there are a lot of wastes that we have to deal with in this country and I think it's going to be interesting in the next couple of years looking at the developments and renewable natural gas and dealing with organic wastes and tippage fees and how all this is developing at the state level right now more questions we have a couple more minutes Julie Yes, I'm going to talk a little bit about the need for renewable land and this reports for a lot of reasons it gives you an idea of the amount of energy that's out there and the audience we need to see a fabulous opportunity to have markets we need to have a place that we don't have any markets to work and for the animal we need to do more deep things we have so much better food and it typically especially out there to burn just burn there's no market for it or it's laying field and we have to generate local keeping permanent electricity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions especially from a long time perspective make permanent electricity that could go over the wind energy to give us off all the fuel and so our challenge is that when we look at the tonnage the value of your tonnage is in some markets for the much you can't sell for a lot of reasons and I'm talking about the salt tank I'm talking about the waste grid it goes over 30 to 40 dollars a ton so with that aim we're in the market and it's very expensive for us to use both of these and it's very hard to burn all of it it's very difficult to get more work so it's time to be here and keep going up and so what we need is really a deeper analysis where there are better markets first and foremost because we're not in a report so it's not in the energy agency but in the end of the report there's going to be a deeper big analysis looking at the real market opportunities so we can have recommendations on where to focus our energies where there are markets and where the end of the future is going to focus on the end of the future the focus is more on this part of the barrel so an analysis of the end of the future is to supply where that intersects and where those opportunities are and there are recommendations for opportunities we'd love to see something like that so I'm wondering if you have a discussion about that sort of analysis I can follow up with Mr. Korn so the question is sort of on looking at some of the waste streams particularly from forest rethining operations and how it is still cost prohibitive at those prices to utilize those waste and if there's any potential looking at development of end uses or particular markets for that's a great example but it could be other examples as well well specifically to answer your question not currently in our plan to look at a specific waste like that and find markets for it in fact to listen to the leadership within our program we don't pick winners, the market picks winners what we do is we reduce the cost of technologies we work towards things that have a large national impact first and then worry a little bit more about the state and regional level secondarily so for instance we would be looking at conversion technologies and are indeed looking at conversion technologies to take wood where it makes sense it'll probably be a pyrolysis type technology to produce an oil that could then displace maybe petroleum at the crude stage go into possibly home heating oil or into diesel or jet fuel streams so that's a national impact that could take any wood whether it's the residues or something coming from a more formal operation in that regard or also taking blended feedstocks that include the residues as well as other feedstocks from the region and bring them in so again our focus right now is on extremely high impact technologies we want to have a suite of those technologies so that the market and those financial risk takers will have something that they could look at to be to enable so they'll look at a region we get groups all the time that come in and they say they've cited a facility that includes things like ensuring that the state allows for what they're trying to do that the biomass resources that are available to them are available in enough quantity and able to be renewed over and over again for a 30 year life cycle for the facility those types of things so right now that's where we're focused on but we are working with, we work often with states and regions to talk about more targeted issues like that for instance we're going up into the main area in the next month or so to look at the paper and pulp industry and what's going on there and ways that we can capitalize on what's happening with their that's obviously a declining market and there are waste or woody streams coming in that are already well established can we help build that into a biomass market that's the kind of thing we do on a more regional level so I'm not saying we'll never get to the particular issue you bring up but right now it's national impact technologies good we do not we do not focus on conventional technology development in any way but that's not to say that the feedstocks that Allison and her team are working on wouldn't go to that market first because that's the one that exists but we're not going to do anything to further develop those technologies and if you look at our current pilot and demonstration requests for proposals those technologies would be non responsive yeah well I just like to add and I don't think you know Valerie's focus of what their current work is is fine but as we look down the road here maybe as near as December I mean our goal is to put together a strategy for how to develop and grow the bio economy and what you point out Julie could be very well part of that strategy but saying that we haven't done that analysis yet but that doesn't mean that it might not come down the road because again we probably know less or don't know what we don't know yet so in some of these this respect I mean it's a new area for us I think an approach like that is incredibly appropriate for an interagency context like the biomass R&D board so it's our mission within the bioenergy technology office is really about technology development now that being said I think there are some technologies that can help with this standard resource issue and the low low cost price that people are willing to pay for those residues a lot of the work we're doing on feedstock supply and logistics may help to access that resource to make it cheaply dense and consistent in its composition such that a bio refinery would pay a little more for it and therefore it would be cost effective to build a facility around utilizing that but yeah that being said I do think that that issue is something that we absolutely recognize there is an interagency biomass utilization group probably well familiar with and I think as we move forward with the biomass R&D board implementation plan of this vision that would be a good challenge for us to look at further great unfortunately we are out of time a lot of great questions and it looks like a lot of great questions on sustainability so everyone should be look forward to the volume two coming out later this year our present the presentations from today and the video will be up on our website within the next 48 hours so you can check back there and thank and please join me all in thanking our speakers thank you