PRESIDENT'S LETTER

Plants and Bioenergy

“…cell walls are an enormously important source of economically important raw material. Examples include the modification of pectin cross-linking or cell–cell adhesion to increase shelf life of fruits and vegetables, the enhancement of dietary fiber contents of cereals, the improvement of yield and quality of fibers, and the relative allocation of carbon to wall biomass for biofuels.” [italics added]

Written in 1980, these lines are from the abstract of one of my first grant proposals to the Department of Energy (DOE). What might sound particularly prescient today is actually quite far from it. For the past 30 years or so, such a rationale could be found in every plant biologist’s research proposal to study the structure and synthesis of the plant cell wall. This was particularly ingrained in many of us who were part of the DOE Plant Research Lab (PRL) on the campus of Michigan State University (MSU).

The DOE was supporting bioenergy research long before it was called the Department of Energy. Indeed, the history of the PRL traces back to 1959 when, in the wake of increased funding for basic research upon the Soviet Union’s launching of Sputnik, a select committee of plant biologists was convened by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to review the plant research programs supported by its Division of Biology and Medicine. The AEC considered research with plants central to its mission but was deeply concerned about the state of plant science, which it perceived as falling behind other disciplines (1). One recommendation was to develop centers of excellence in association with one or more land grant institutions, where a student’s interest in plant research could be fostered specifically in energy-related disciplines. Some six years later, the PRL was sited at MSU, and among the legendary ASPB members who became its first faculty was the renowned biochemist Joe Varner, who cloned the first gene that encoded a cell wall protein.

ASPB President Nick Carpita

The PRL’s first faculty, 1966. From left to right: Phil Filner, Peter Wolk, Joe Varner, Jan Zeevaardt, John Scandalios, Hans Kende, Anton Lang (director), Lloyd Wilson, and Derek Lamport.

Bob Rabson

The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 was a call to action that a petroleum-based economy was dangerous for energy—and, indeed, national—security, if that economy was based on imported sources. Although the embargo ended a year later, huge increases in gasoline prices continued after President Jimmy Carter, himself a student of nuclear engineering, came into office. In response, Carter created the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) that a year later organized into a full-fledged government agency, the DOE. In a single year, the MSU–AEC lab became the MSU–ERDA lab and then the MSU–DOE Plant Research Lab. The PRL began to hire faculty more directly involved with advancing basic energy sciences. Noted cell wall researchers would join the PRL, such as Debby Delmer, who discovered genes that encode cellulose synthases; Chris Somerville, who championed Arabidopsis as a genetic model for cell wall research; and Ken Keegstra, who focused on the biosynthesis of xyloglucan. Ken was a postdoc in the lab of another giant in ASPB, Peter Albersheim, whose AEC-funded group, now the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center in Georgia, proposed the first molecular model of the plant cell wall in 1973.

Resources for alternative energy research quintupled during the Carter administration (2). However, with the crash of the oil market in the 1980s, the subsequent administration deemed the programs, which Carter envisioned as critical for U.S. future prosperity and energy independence, unnecessary expenditures. Funding plummeted to pre-Carter levels, and the policy initiatives for promoting a domestic bioenergy industry all but disappeared. But among the leadership at DOE were those who steadfastly championed the basic biology of plants as fundamental to alternate energy solutions, and they stood behind its key institutions. The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program of DOE generated competitive grants of its own, funding substantial areas of plant and microbial research devoted to the understanding of how biomass is made and how it is degraded and fermented to ethanol and other useful fuels. The DOE Office of Science urged certain national labs, like Brookhaven and Oak Ridge, to develop bioenergy programs. The Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) began operations in 1977, and its activities extended beyond research and development in solar energy to include H2 production by plants and ethanol production from biomass. In 1991, SERI became the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), establishing centers of research and development expertise in renewable electricity, renewable fuels, integrated energy systems, and strategic energy analysis (3). NREL provided a path to commercialization through construction and performance evaluation of production-scale facilities. From the late 1970s onward, academic and private centers and hundreds of individual investigators received consistent support for research on the basic understanding of the biochemistry and genetics of plant processes.

For all plant biologists, the impact of DOE extended well beyond energy research in the formation of the Joint Genome Institute under the direction of the Biological and Environmental Research program in the Office of Science. Partnerships with the USDA aim to integrate and implement the promise of an agroenergy economy into rural communities. Although the USDA and NSF have provided critical support in basic and applied plant biology, the Office of Science at DOE has had a unique role in funding use-inspired discovery–grand challenge science in application to the real-world problem of energy security.

Despite this long history, few plant biologists had heard of switchgrass until it was mentioned by President George W. Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address. A DOE workshop report “Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol” had just been published (4), and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 signaled a renewal of serious attention toward plants as sources of renewable energy. We had to step up our game and apply plant and microbial systems approaches to increase the pace of discovery. Funding like nobody had seen before in plant biology was committed, such as $125 million to establish three centers combining academia and DOE National Labs for systems approaches to optimize plants and microbes used in biological conversion routes from biomass to biofuels. Presidents of ASPB began writing about bioenergy in the newsletter. Mike Thomashow wrote about how our new genomic resources could be put to use in the development of bioenergy crops (5), and Rick Amasino wrote twice on the urgency of addressing climate change and the role of bioenergy crops in its mitigation (6). Rob McClung covered the potential downside of bioenergy cropping systems, the problems of ethanol production from corn grain, and the impact of indirect land use issues on global food supply (7); Sally Assmann followed with the benefits of perennial grasses and sustainable cropping systems (8).

The fruits of these investments are beginning to show, but DOE is not done. With renewed commitment to a green energy economy from the Obama administration and boosted by funds resulting from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, DOE’s Office of Science realized the long-held desire to advance all alternative energy programs. Four of the 46 funded centers are focused specifically on bioenergy to probe the molecular structure of cell walls, develop algal biofuels, move toward biomimetic and artificial photosynthesis, and use chemical and thermal catalysis to convert biomass directly to energy-dense “drop-in” biofuels more like gasoline in molecular composition.

Through feast and famine, plant biology had a champion at DOE who engineered this development, from the promotion of the AEC PRL through to the competitive grants program and other centers of excellence that fostered energy research in plants. That champion was Bob Rabson. Bob saw development of a sustained and vibrant community through DOE as an essential strategy to drive the science of bioenergy. His philosophy was to provide innovative individuals with a continuity of funding collectively needed to protect the larger mission. For me, his philosophy was captured best when he said, “I like to think that DOE is different because we fund people, not proposals.” Much of what is being done today in advancing basic bioenergy research we owe to the foundational support Bob provided through the BES program, which he led for many years, and inspired in the leadership that followed to this day. Winner of ASPB’s Gude Prize in 1986 for his leadership, Bob is also an inaugural ASPB Fellow. Through a generous contribution that Bob and his wife, Eileen, made to ASPB, and with the added support of the many ASPB friends whose careers he fostered, we are happy to announce this year the creation of the biennial Robert Rabson Award, an honor for exceptional contributions to the field of bioenergy by a young investigator.

But where has all this support brought us today? Have DOE’s 50-year investments in bioenergy research brought us closer to energy independence? Probably, but the impact is not yet realized in a flourishing biofuels industry that displaces significant quantities of imported oil. The investments are large by the standards we have learned to accept for plant biology research dollars, but they are small in the grander scheme. Indeed, the total investment in energy sciences is less than 2% of the national research budget. We have sufficient annual biomass and the paths to conversion to reach the congressionally mandated goal of 36 billion gallons of renewable liquid biofuel per year by 2022 (9). The remarkable advances in plant genomics and genetics of the past decade give deserved optimism for continued improvements in food and feed crops, as well as high-yielding, low-input new crops designed as energy crops that can push yields much further.

Scientists are working on many solutions, from algae to grasses to trees. As former USDA Undersecretary Gale Buchanan (and others) put it, “…we can’t hope to accomplish this with a silver bullet—we’ll need silver buckshot…”(10). But the financial stakes are so high that researchers are often too quick to explain why their bullet is superior to everyone else’s. For all technologies, a “reality check” is necessary to emphasize the implementation bottlenecks that need to be overcome. Oil production from algae seems a reasonable path to a high-density “drop-in” fuel, but the production capacity and water demands involved need substantial improvement (11). Perennial grasses are touted as the optimal high-yield, low-input solution for a bioenergy crop. However, their superior qualities for low input are compared to grain corn, and annual crops like tropical maize and sorghum are equally high yielding and low input but provide huge benefits to growers who can fit them into sustainable rotation and use the same harvesting equipment (12). The infrastructure already in place in the Midwest creates the likely launch region for the bioenergy agroeconomy, but “food versus fuel,” life cycle analyses, and indirect land use issues cloud investment (13). However, we have no option but to move forward and muddle through, contributing our expertise for the necessary solutions.

Figure 1. In the long view of recent human history, oil production will be a narrow window (14).

If our past experience in the chronicles of human culture and behavior are a measure, our prospects are gloomy. Humans have been using wood for energy and construction since we were H. erectus, and wood and biomass are still the principal form of energy for developing countries. Throughout human society, wood has been the essential resource, not only for fuel, but also for construction of fishing boats and vast armadas. In his engaging book Life Without Oil (14), Steve Hallett documents many examples where, despite the reliance of a people on wood for their survival, from the Polynesians of Easter Island to the Roman Empire, they consumed this valuable resource to their own societal collapse. The slope of change was shallow enough over a single generation to mask the inevitable, but consumption continued unabated even when the inevitable could be foreseen. According to Hallett, in the larger view, the consumption of oil will be an anomaly, a strange blip in human existence (Figure 1). Unfortunately, this blip is peaking just at the inflection point of the exponential growth of a human population that, for the most part, doesn’t use oil but wants to. Liquid fuel for personal vehicles is today’s luxury of rich and emerging nations. It isn’t a matter of whether bioenergy and all other forms of carbon-neutral energy will be able to replace petroleum, but when, how, and to what extent.

We could have learned much from Brazil. In response to the rise in oil prices in the wake of the OPEC oil embargo, Brazil revived a 50-year-old mandate to develop ethanol from sugarcane—not without fits and starts, such as the corrosion problems and inability to run on gasoline that doomed the Pro-Álcool cars that immediately followed to commercial failure. Determined, the Brazilians pushed on to advance the technology of alternative fuel vehicles. Flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on any combination of gasoline or ethanol, were introduced and strongly promoted in 2003. Ironically, a great many of them were built in partnership with American companies, and these vehicles brought Brazil to liquid fuel energy independence (15). Over 90% of Brazilian cars today are flex-fuel. Today, self-sufficiency in energy plays a large role in Brazil being second only to China in economic growth.

One can’t help but think back on that original “Sputnik moment,” that wakeup call that U.S. complacency had allowed the country to slip as the world’s technology leader. At a recent DOE Energy Frontiers Summit, Secretary Steven Chu reminded us of the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s call to action in his first State of the Union address. It was a time of a troubled economy, a jobless recovery from recession, a time of world disorder, one filled with threats of terrorism and instability in the Middle East (16)—an uncanny reflection of today. Kennedy vowed that “…this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” I was an 11-year-old school kid growing up 100 miles from Cape Canaveral when Kennedy spoke those words to Congress. To my generation, this was going to be a great adventure that, without question, would succeed. But I also recall that for the most part, our parents scoffed—pursuing a wild dream that couldn’t possibly be realized was surely a waste of tax dollars at a time of such an uncertain economy.

The precipitous decline of oil as our major energy resource is our new “Sputnik moment” and demands a “Project Apollo” response. Sadly, too many among that inspired Apollo generation are now questioning the impact that bioenergy will have and are deriding the “waste” of tax dollars spent in developing a green economy. But bioenergy will indeed succeed as a major contributor to our sustainable future. Today’s new generation of kids know it is achievable because it has to be. The prospects of failure are too dim.

Nick Carpita

References

1. History of the Plant Research Laboratory: The beginnings (1965–1978).
2. Origins and evolution of the Department of Energy.
3. Himmel, M.E. (2009). Corn stover conversion to biofuels: DOE’s preparation for readiness in 2012. Cellulose 16: 531-534.
4. Department of Energy. (2005). Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic ethanol: A joint research agenda.
5. Thomashow, M. (2006). Plant biologists and the development of renewable energy sources. ASPB News 33(1): 1, 5.
6. Amasino, R. (2007). Energy and plant biology. ASPB News 34(1): 1, 4;); Amasino, R. (2007). The energy pie. ASPB News 34(5): 5–6.
7. McClung, C.R. (2008). Let them eat cake? One dickens of a dilemma. ASPB News 35(3): 1, 4–5.
8. Assmann, S. (2009) Perennialism and stewardship. ASPB News 36 (3): 1, 4-5.
9. Interagency Working Group. (2010). Growing America’s fuel: An innovation approach to achieving the president’s biofuels target.
10. Buchanan, G.A. (August 26, 2006). Statement before Senate Oversight Committee hearing on biofuels research for energy production.
11. Wigmosta, M.S., et al. (2011). National microalgae biofuel production potential and resource demand. Water Resource Research 47: W00H04.
12. Vermerris, W. (2011). Survey of genomics approaches to improve bioenergy traits in maize, sorghum, and sugarcane. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 53: 105-119.
13. McCone, T.E., et al. (2011). Grand challenges for life-cycle assessment of biofuels. Environmental Science & Technology 45: 1751-1756.
14. Hallett, S. (2011). Life without oil: Why we must shift to a new energy future. New York: Prometheus Books.
15. Soccol, C.R., et al. (2010). Bioethanol from lignocelluloses: Status and perspectives in Brazil. Bioresource Technology 101: 4820-4825.
16. Kennedy, J.F. (May 25, 1961). Special message to the Congress on urgent national needs.