Issuu on Google+

FISCAL YEAR 2011 ANNUAL REPORT


Strengthening the university’s leadership in energy innovation Since its inception in 1848, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has served the state, the nation and the world with innovative educational and research responses to societal challenges involving natural and social sciences. To be successful, these responses have often involved complex administrative structures that adapt and evolve in support of UWMadison’s leadership roles. Today, many societal concerns revolve around finding renewable and clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels. Five years ago, the UW responded to this challenge by engineering and launching an innovative partnership that spans natural and social sciences to answer a call by the U.S. Department Paul M. DeLuca, Jr. of Energy (DOE) for the creation of three national bioenergy centers. DOE sought to inspire a new energy research approach that would take a long-term, multidisciplinary look at renewable energy potentials with a foundation in the biological sciences. The result was the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC)—a partnership of UW-Madison, several other universities from across the nation, the state of Wisconsin and the federal government. The state committed parallel funding to the university for the Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative (WBI), and a preponderance of the committed resources flowed to support relevant activities at UWMadison. In 2007 during the formative years of GLBRC, the UW-Madison chancellor delegated to the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences the administrative responsibility for the state funds to support WBI in serving as a catalyst to building a sustainable energy economy in Wisconsin, the Midwest and beyond. Since its inception, the WBI has taken major strides toward positioning the state as a leader in bioenergy research, education and innovation. WBI continues to fulfill its commitment to the state by investing in building collaborative bioenergy research, connections with industry and other stakeholders, and policy expertise on campus. Eight new faculty members with WBI support are already at work investigating critical issues in agronomy, biochemistry, bacteriology, genetics, biological systems engineering, economics and geography. Extending that commitment and recognizing the maturity of GLBRC, the university has appointed five multidisciplinary UW-Madison energy faculty members to a governance committee to lead the WBI in identifying projects and mechanisms that will continue the mission to discover and promote bioenergy solutions in Wisconsin and the Midwest. The success of WBI and GLBRC has laid the foundation for another step toward innovative approaches to the challenges that the world will face in clean and renewable energies. The GLBRC and WBI are just two of many university groups conducting the research needed to help guarantee the nation’s energy security. Each year, the university receives almost $100 million for energy research, with more than 130 different projects and research expertise across five different colleges

1 | Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative


throughout campus. In laboratories, classrooms and within the surrounding communities, more than 100 UW-Madison faculty researchers and 300 graduate students are working on the basic science, engineering, policy and social science required to lead the way toward energy independence. Next year, the WBI will join researchers from GLBRC and the College of Engineering in a stateof-the-art building dedicated to energy research. Set to open in early 2013, the new Wisconsin Energy Institute (WEI) facility will be the next innovative step to reflect the university’s research, development and outreach missions. The GLBRC’s and WBI’s future campus home will provide a spatial, administrative and conceptual base to catalyze, enable and support the multidisciplinary innovations needed to provide tomorrow’s complex energy systems. In this way, WEI will further poise the university, the state of Wisconsin and the nation to have a stronger, more accessible presence in renewable energy research, development, education and outreach. GLBRC, WBI, and WEI faculty and staff will continue in their efforts to stimulate the state’s economy, demonstrate Wisconsin’s expertise and train future energy leaders. The impacts of their important work will only be strengthened as we continue to foster the renewable energy research and education ecologies on campus.

Paul M. DeLuca, Jr. UW-Madison Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

FY 2011 Annual Report | 2


news & notes 2011 Wisconsin Bioenergy Summit The fourth annual Wisconsin Bioenergy Summit hosted more than 200 bioenergy professionals, researchers and policymakers in Madison on October 6, 2011. The event focused on building a bioenergy economy in the Midwest, and sought to encourage partnerships and connections between the public and private sectors in bioenergy. Governor Scott Walker opened the day-long program with remarks on the present and future state of bioenergy in Wisconsin. He spoke about creating jobs in Wisconsin and identified bioenergy as a potential answer. “The national debate in Washington, and to a certain extent out in New York on Wall Street, has been somewhat like a wet blanket. I think we can find a way to punch through that blanket,” Walker said. “And certainly when we look at bioenergy, that’s one of the areas of potential growth not only for us here in Wisconsin but the Midwest.” “When it comes to biomass, making sure that all of those involved in the supply chain particularly in rural areas but in urban areas as well. We find a way to collaborate in that regard so that we can provide economic opportunity all the way through. And that’s beneficial at every step throughout the supply chain process.”

Governor Scott Walker delivers opening remarks at the 2011 Wisconsin Bioenergy Summit. Photo: Matthew Wisniewski/GLBRC

Energy, BIOFerm Energy Systems, Michael Best & Friedrich, Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center and UW-Madison.

BioGRASP: A student proposal for biogas benefits in Uganda A student-led proposal that was a first-round winner in the Climate Leadership Challenge is working to support economic growth through biogas energy solutions in Uganda.

The conference featured breakout sessions and panel discussions in three tracks: From Innovation to Production: Bioenergy Technologies; Biogas: Wisconsin’s Opportunity Fuel; and What it Takes to Create Sustainable Bioenergy Systems in the Midwest.

The project began when a group of UW-Madison students traveled to Germany with WBI and UW-Madison researchers, policymakers and other officials to investigate the use and production of biogas in the agricultural sector last year. The trip kicked off an extensive research project and culminated with two separate reports. WBI published a strategic plan for Wisconsin, while the student-led report showcased the environmental benefits of biogas digester implementation in a variety of agricultural settings.

Virent Energy Systems CEO Lee Edwards provided the closing remarks. Other speakers included representatives from Baker Tilly, WPPI

After publishing their report, project trainees and UW-Madison students Aleia McCord and Sarah Stefanos arranged to further their findings and

3 | Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative


expand their geographical boundaries through a dissertation.

Meet our faculty members

They utilized the privately sponsored 2011 Climate Leadership Challenge competition to launch a feasibility study of expanding biogas in Uganda, Africa. The proposal, BioGRASP: Biogas Growth: Regional and Sustainable Partnerships, acknowledges environmental benefits of biogas, including waste management opportunities, indoor air quality improvement, production of organic fertilizer from digest solids and protecting forests, thus ultimately promoting tourism.

Rob P. Anex Professor, Biological Systems Engineering Bioenergy Expertise: Life-cycle assessment of biorenewable resources/ bio-based industries Research Focus:

A true testament to the Wisconsin Idea, the program will foster increased information exchanged between Uganda and Wisconsin. Ultimately, BioGRASP aims to support economic growth through a demand-driven energy solution.

Techno-economic analysis

The proposal received a $2,000 award through the Climate Leadership Challenge. McCord and Stefanos will continue to search for alternative funding as they promote their proposal and cultivate dynamic collaborations.

Xiaodong (Sheldon) Du

Download the student report, “Got Gas: An Analysis of Wisconsin’s Biogas Opportunity,” here: go.wisc.edu/63f9yf Learn more about BioGRASP here:

go.wisc.edu/gg3816

Increasing bioenergy expertise on campus In 2011, the WBI fulfilled its commitment to build collaborative bioenergy expertise on campus. Our eight faculty members are already at work investigating key issues in agronomy, biochemistry, bacteriology, genetics, biological systems engineering, economics and geography.

Biological systems analysis and assessment Life-cycle assessment

Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Applied Economics Bioenergy Expertise: Economics and policy issues related to first- and second-generation biofuels Research Focus: Linkages between energy and agriculture Biofuels economics and energy/environmental policies

FY 2011 Annual Report | 4


Holly K. Gibbs

Chris Kucharik

Assistant Professor, Geography and Environmental Studies

Associate Professor, Agronomy and Environmental Studies

Bioenergy Expertise:

Bioenergy Expertise:

U.S. biofuels policies and implications for carbon balance and conservation

Integrating field observations with numerical ecosystem models of bioenergy cropping systems to understand the influence of climate change and land management on ecosystem services provided by agricultural landscapes

Research Focus: Tropical land use change and bioenergy Food security, climate change and conservation potential Land use change and the implications for carbon

Christopher Hittinger Assistant Professor, Genetics

Research Focus: Identifying and quantifying bi-directional feedbacks between land management, climate, and ecosystems Quantifying the impacts of varied land management on coupled biogeochemical cycles, and the ecosystem goods and services we derive from agroecosystems

Bioenergy Expertise: Evolution of aerobic fermentation in yeast; utilization of alternative and novel carbon sources Research Focus: Variation of yeast carbon metabolism

John Ralph Professor, Biochemistry Bioenergy Expertise: Plant lignin and cell wall biochemistry

Yeast biodiversity, ecology and evolution Functional and evolutionary genomics; nextgeneration sequencing

Research Focus: Plant transgenics, lignin biosynthesis Developing methodologies for characterizing the cell wall and its components Delineating the effect of pretreatments on the cell wall and attempting to model lignin polymerization

5 | Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative


Troy Runge Assistant Professor, Biological Systems Engineering Bioenergy Expertise: Characterizing biomass to assess thermochemical routes in creating fuels Research Focus: Chemical and thermal treatments to create easier conversion of biomass to fuel and bioproducts Techno-economic analysis to confirm sustainability of thermochemical pathways

World Energy Statistics There were 15,624 megatons (Mt) of CO2 emissions in 1973. In 2009, this number reached 28,999 Mt. 1 The International Energy Agency says that “energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high.” The U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA) estimates that world energy consumption will grow 53% by 2035. 2

Garret Suen Assistant Professor, Bacteriology Bioenergy Expertise: Symbiotic microbes and microbial communities Herbivore deconstruction of biomass

In 1979 only 0.6% of the world’s electricity was produced from renewable energy sources (including geothermal, solar, wind, biofuels and waste, heat). In 2009, this number rose to 3.3%.1 Renewable energy production is expected to increase to 15% in 2035. 1 The U.S. EIA notes that “renewables are the fastestgrowing source of world energy, with consumption growing 2.8% per year.” 2

Research Focus: How symbiotic microbes convert biomass into usable nutrients for their herbivore hosts and how this is applicable to the production of biofuels

1 “Key World Energy Statistics 2011.” October 2011. International Energy Agency, www.iea.org. 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov.

FY 2011 Annual Report | 6


it starts with

Plants Plants and plant-based materials lie at the core of bioenergy research and development. An important first step in bioenergy discovery is analyzing and understanding planting and cropping systems ecology. Our researchers help promote bioenergy by analyzing the benefits, and to what extent these benefits exist, from the implementation of bioenergy cropping and harvesting systems. WBI faculty members are investigating the effects of bioenergy systems on surrounding landscapes to determine what the transition from an energy economy dependent on finite fossil fuels to one founded on renewable, sustainable solutions could look like. Research in agronomy, biochemistry and grassland ecology lays the foundation for this transition by informing policymakers, and public and private stakeholders on how best to promote it.

Photo: Falicia Hines/WBI


Bioenergy cropping systems ecology Understanding how the decisions we make today will impact the future is an important scientific endeavor. UW–Madison Associate Professor of Agronomy and Environmental Studies and WBI faculty member Chris Kucharik is working to understand how today’s bioenergy policy could affect the environment and climate tomorrow.

“We’ll be investigating the potential future land use change associated with a developing bioeconomy and climate change,” Kucharik says. “We want to assess these drivers on biogeochemical cycling across the Yahara Watershed.”

The watershed site will allow Kucharik to take a variety of measurements—soil moisture profiles, soil temperature, meteorological conditions and water table depth—across a variety of land use and cover types from low and high density urban development, wetlands, grasslands, forests to agricultural cropping systems that are targeted In some instances the problem isn’t just a lack for future bioenergy feedstocks. This type of data of data, but how data is interpreted by decision provides insight for how big or small the impact of makers. our current choices will be and whether that impact is “The largest scientific “The ultimate goal of my positive. roadblocks for bioenergy research is to provide right now are not only a lack Still, Kucharik believes this of data, but also confusion knowledge in support information is useless if over the data that does exist,” of decision-making people whom it could affect Kucharik says. individuals, organizations, cannot understand it. One of his goals is to help stakeholders and “We aim to meet with inform and educate decision and interview a variety of makers by making data government officials.” policymakers, landowners, clearer. Chris Kucharik farmers, scientists, grass roots organizations and local “My research is trying to government representatives,” Kucharik says. generate new information and data to help clarify how varied land management might feed back into These interviews will gather information from key our climate system and water supplies.” groups that are directly affected by water quality and quantity issues. Kucharik hopes to develop The majority of Kucharik’s work focuses on the integrated scenarios of likely change for the region environmental effects of current bioenergy that help make data relatable. feedstocks. He collaborates with researchers at the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center’s “These scenarios will be used in concert with (GLBRC’s) experimental plots in Arlington, biophysical modeling tools to understand how land Wisconsin. There, his group observes and measures management changes, including the planting of soil environment, net ecosystem exchanges of bioenergy crops and future climate change, could carbon, climate regulation and plant diversity. lead to changes in water quality and quantity.” In 2011, Kucharik received funding through the “The ultimate goal of my research is to provide National Science Foundation’s Water Sustainability knowledge in support of decision-making and Climate Program to investigate the effects individuals, organizations, stakeholders and of future land use and climate change on water government officials,” Kucharik says. “Hopefully supplies in and around the Yahara Watershed.

FY 2011 Annual Report | 8


leading to more responsible environmental stewardship and improving the long-term sustainability of our natural resources.”

understand energy and the economic impacts of alternative cropping systems.

Designing plants for production of biofuels and bioproducts

Creating communities of bioenergy plants Another key gap in our knowledge about bioenergy production systems is how to develop efficient cropping systems for production of perennial biomass sources that also enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes.

UW–Madison Biochemistry Professor, and GLBRC/ WBI researcher John Ralph pursues greater understanding of plants at their most basic levels— lignin and cell wall chemistry—the building blocks of plant structure. In understanding the fundamental, biochemical processes of how a plant develops, For example, some data suggest that beneficial Ralph is able to theorize with collaborators around insects—like insect predators or pollinators—and the world how to design plants that are more their services may increase efficient means to an end. In this under some bioenergy cropping “Everyone on the planet case, the end is the production of systems but decline under others. is affected, negatively, viable bioproducts. Understanding these potential synergies and tradeoffs, and by our reliance on “We would like to do nothing less communicating them effectively high-greenhouse gas- than develop plant materials that to decision-makers at all are ‘designed’ for high-efficiency levels, is a critical need in the producing fossil fuel utilization,” Ralph says. “For implementation of sustainable biofuels and other commodity utilization.” bioenergy systems. chemicals.”

John Ralph

UW–Madison Associate Professor of Grassland Ecology and GLBRC researcher Randy Jackson is conducting field-scale research with native plant communities varying in species richness. Collaborating with UW–Madison Associate Professor of Entomology and GLBRC researcher Claudio Gratton, they are studying how these plant mixes grown for biofuels trade-off ecosystem services such as biomass yield, carbon sequestration, nutrient recycling and habitat for desirable insects and pollinators. It is important to create production systems that can provide both biofuel and other ecosystem services, and are economically sustainable for farmers and rural communities. Researchers, land managers, and policymakers can use the data to

9 | Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative

Ralph’s work has been recognized as revolutionary for how it approaches the basic roadblock of cellulosic biofuels: accessing and processing plant sugars so they can be converted into fuels. Because the most sustainable sources of sugar are locked inside the plant cell walls by polymeric lignins, Ralph’s group aims to provide simpler access to them by engineering lignins that are easier to degrade and process, developing methods to accurately profile cell wall structures and investigating pretreatments that increase cell wall digestibility. Developing and refining a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) technique is providing highly detailed structural profiling of cell walls and allows Ralph’s group to gain a better understanding of


plant structure. NMR profiling, or “fingerprinting,” provides deeper insight of plant cell wall composition for researchers to relate with other data they have collected. They use this information to analyze plant development, determine ideal feedstocks for conversion and predict conversion efficiency. “We’re developing dissolution and high-resolution, solution-state NMR that will work on the entire cell wall material without needing to fractionate or isolate cell wall components,” Ralph says. In 2011 these advanced NMR methods helped Ralph’s group, with collaborators from Spain, elucidate the way in which lignin composition and structure changes in a growing Eucalyptus plant as it ages. The discovery will help inform future research to determine what kind of pretreatments are most effective for plants of different ages, and also has implications for the stability of ligninaltered transgenic plant lines. Ralph’s group also collaborated with Clint Chapple’s lab at Purdue University to provide NMR evidence that sinapyl alcohol (a fundamental building block of plant cell wall lignins) could be produced more efficiently in Arabidopsis, a small flowering species commonly used as a model plant for other bioenergy crops. They determined that when an ancient gene from Selaginella, a moss-like plant, is introduced into Arabidopsis, sinapyl alcohol can be produced more efficiently with one less enzyme than in unaltered Arabidopsis. This discovery demonstrated that each of these plants developed a means to make sinapyl alcohol, independent of one another, during their evolution. By introducing the new pathway into one plant, the researchers were able to reroute what the plant would normally do and produce a novel lignin not previously identified.

Such work is important to bioenergy research because it demonstrates that researchers can manipulate plants to form custom lignins that are easier to break down using equipment and technology that already exists. One approach, to incorporate readily-cleavable bonds into the backbone of the lignin polymer, is proceeding toward its goal. This provides a relevant foundation for advancing the production of fuels and chemicals from non-petroleum sources. “Everyone on the planet is affected, negatively, by our reliance on high-greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuel utilization,” Ralph says. “We’re trying to improve plants that are destined for biofuels and chemical production, so they can be more efficiently and effectively produced with a superior net energy balance.”

Renewable Energy in Wisconsin If the Wisconsin renewable electricity standard was increased to 25% by 2025, then:

There could be a $59 million reduction in electricity bills.

CO2 emissions reductions would be equivalent to taking 2.1 million cars off the road.

2,650 new jobs could be created from

renewable energy. That’s five times the number of jobs that would be created if the same amount of electricity was generated from coal or natural gas.

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists. “Raising the Bar in Wisconsin.” Last Modified March 2010. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/ documents/clean_energy/Wisconsin-renewable-portfoliostandard.pdf

FY 2011 Annual Report | 10


Photos: Matthew Wisniewski/GLBRC Falicia Hines/WBI


The biomass Breakdown There are two important problems in taking a plant and creating fuel from it. The first is an issue of breaking down the biomass — how can we access the sugars buried inside of a plant’s cell wall to get to the useful materials that can be converted into biofuels? Equally important is the question of conversion. Once we access the sugars and useful plant carbons, how do we convert them into useful bioproducts efficiently? When we create fuels, energy or other secondary bioproducts, like chemical compounds or tissue pulp, from biomass how can we maximize the output while minimizing the amount of input? This information could help decrease the risk for investors and grow the bioenergy economy. Answers come from many avenues, like increasing efficiency in conversion or finding secondary applications from biofuels processing. WBI faculty are showing that these problems can also be an area of great promise, and that opportunity exists for growing the bioeconomy and reducing the impacts of oil dependency.

Using herbivores for plant degradation Plant biomass degradation is the natural process where microbial communities produce enzymes that break down a plant’s cell wall carbohydrates and gain access to the simple sugars that compose them, like glucose and xylose. “Herbivores, in and of themselves, lack the ability to degrade plant biomass,” says Garret Suen, UW–Madison assistant professor of bacteriology and WBI faculty member. “Instead, they rely on symbiotic communities to break down plant matter.” When the bacteria break down plant biomass, they use the resulting sugars for their own reproduction in addition to converting them into nutrients usable by their host organism. “When you look at an animal’s size versus the amount of food they eat and digest, you just wonder how they do it,” Suen says. “You wonder what’s at work and can it be improved and replicated.”

This reasoning has formed the foundation for microbial research into biomass digesting species, ranging from ants to pandas. But, Suen contends that one of the most efficient biomass deconstructing animals has deep ties to Wisconsin’s history of agriculture and dairy production. “By this criteria, cows are one of the most prolific plant biomass degraders,” Suen says. A cow’s weight varies largely from breed to breed, but on average a Holstein weighs about 700 kilograms and a Jersey cow approximately 500 kilograms. These cows eat 8-11 Kg of feed a day, and convert the biomass into usable energy at a rate of about 11-12 megajoules of energy per kilogram of feed. (Weimer et al., 2009). The problem remains in figuring out how cows achieve such a high level of efficient conversion from feed to energy. In 2011, Suen sequenced Fibrobacter succinogenes, a bacterium found in cattle rumen, for a paper published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE.

FY 2011 Annual Report | 12


“Unraveling Fibrobacter succinogenes’ genome sequence will help us understand how it utilizes cellulases to accomplish such efficient plant biomass degradation,” Suen says. Because cows can digest biomass, and convert and ferment sugars into nutrients after intake, they can provide valuable information for bioenergy researchers seeking to replicate the process for commercial use. While the microbes do not naturally ferment ethanol in the rumen, they do in a lab setting. This is the process Suen studies. While Suen’s research focuses on cows, he believes the process might be applicable to other ruminant herbivores and how their bacterial communities help degrade plant biomass. “It’s very expensive to produce the enzymes necessary to generate ethanol,” Suen says. “But looking at cows and other herbivores will help us develop a more diverse suite of enzymes and bacterial mixes optimized for specific feedstocks.” More efficient enzymes targeted toward specific feedstocks could lead to more ethanol production with less enzyme input. Ultimately, this can lower the cost of production, in turn lowering the cost for consumers.

What yeast can teach us There are 12 million base pairs in the genetic sequence of yeast. There is such a level of genetic variance between Saccharomyces species that comparing two closely related yeasts is the equivalent of comparing a human to a chicken. “I think we can agree that humans and chickens have at least a few differences. In yeast it’s more subtle,” says Chris Hittinger, assistant professor of genetics and WBI faculty member. “I think what’s missing is an appreciation for how complex the gene networks in yeast are and how different yeasts make the decisions that they do.” 13 | Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative

Hittinger’s research examines the genetic basis for yeast carbon metabolism, how this process evolves in nature and how it can be utilized for industry. Carbon metabolism is central to the yeast’s lifestyle. Yeasts break down organic matter to survive, trying to produce usable molecules for the creation of energy and reproduction. But, there is extraordinary variance in the metabolic capabilities of yeast species. “There are absolute types of variation, where different yeasts use different carbon sources. So, you might have one yeast that can consume a particular sugar and another that can’t,” says Hittinger. “Or, as is the case in most yeasts, they don’t ferment sugars to produce ethanol. That is an evolved trait found only in some kinds of yeast, notably the Saccharomyces yeasts that make beer and fuels.” Understanding the genetic variations in yeast and how ethanol creation through yeast carbon metabolism evolved is important because it can help make sugar-to-ethanol conversions more efficient. Hittinger believes his research may lay the foundation for engineering yeasts that use more than one carbon source or are more tolerant to biofuel production environments. In the industrial process of producing simple sugars to feed yeast, chemical reactions occur quicker and enzymes work faster at higher temperatures. But, when it comes to the fermentation step, yeast is only effective up to a certain temperature. So producers must input energy to cool the system down, making the process less efficient. “In addition to improving ethanol yields, there’s considerable interest in figuring out the genetic basis for a yeast’s tolerance to temperature and hydrolysis byproducts,” Hittinger says. “Understanding how relevant traits vary naturally will help us engineer better yeast strains.“


Characterizing and processing biomass Troy Runge, UW–Madison assistant professor of biological systems engineering and WBI faculty member, is looking to create value from the bioenergy production process. He characterizes feedstocks, analyzes routes to create bioproducts from those feedstocks and determines if the process can be viable at commercial scale. Runge believes finding additional products that can be produced from biomass along with biofuels will lower investment risk and enable companies to finance biorefinery projects. These valueadded streams can help make a bioprocess more viable. “Shifting “If we find high-value co-products to produce with biofuels, that will enable more companies to invest in biorefineries,” Runge says. “It will spur on the development of a bio-based economy.”

hemicellulose extraction in pulp making. Four biomass types were selected based on high productivity and ecological sustainability: hybrid poplar, Miscanthus, switchgrass and corn stover. The extracted biomass was used to create pulp and analyzed for suitability to tissue production. “The resulting pulps had lower strength and higher bulk properties—ideal for tissue applications,” Runge says. “But, there was a ten percent reduction in yield. This might not make them a viable solution.”

Runge’s third project focused on the technoeconomic analysis of biomass boilers used for heat and power. Runge characterized fuels that offered the best environmental societal and economic efficiencies for this particular application. dependence away

from these fossil fuel resources is expected to have multiple positive impacts.” Troy Runge

Runge’s lab has undertaken three bioprocessing projects that aim to make biomass a more accessible option for biofuel and bioproduct creation. The first was an investigation of a process to convert woody biomass efficiently into levulinic and formic acids, both of which have been shown capable of catalytic conversion into jet fuel. Chemically treating biomass often hinders the catalytic reactions necessary for subsequent conversion steps. “With acid treatments to these products, the conversion yield was optimized,” Runge says. “But, more importantly we found that degradation products were minimized.”

His lab created an apparatus capable of creating biomass pellets at densities similar to commercial grade. They then analyzed the results through an energy material model based on pellet production at the Wood Residual Solutions plant in Montello, Wisconsin. “The model is being verified,” Runge says, “but is initially showing that wood chips are more energy efficient than pellets for lower transportation distances.” Optimizing product efficiency and viability through bioprocessing will help shift the U.S. towards a renewable energy economy. “Shifting societal dependence away from these fossil fuel resources is expected to have multiple positive impacts,” Runge says. “Enhanced national security, rural employment opportunities and environmental improvements.”

A second project investigated the impact of FY 2011 Annual Report | 14


Photo: Falicia Hines/WBI

SUSTAINING THE FUTURE Understanding the effects of bioenergy in the immediate and distant future is of utmost concern to bioenergy researchers. Tempering expectations and backing conclusions with solid data and information will help ensure that the decisions we make today will be beneficial in the future. The questions our bioenergy researchers are asking today could help them understand the immediate and distant repercussions of our actions. For example, what effects do bioenergy feedstocks have on the environment? Can we create policy that encourages bioenergy production and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but protects food sources and forests? Are the benefits greater than the risks? If left unanswered, these questions could paint a complicated picture. However, it remains clear that a renewable energy future is certainly possible. Researchers agree that there will be benefits, but to what extent and how we achieve them is where they deviate. WBI faculty members are taking a multilateral approach to answering these questions and supporting their conclusions with data in areas of lifecycle analysis, land use change, economics and policy. 15 | Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative


Land-based change and globalization Often in science there is a struggle between solving the challenges of today and meeting the needs of tomorrow. Bioenergy proves to be one area where these ideals commonly collide, as evidenced by issues like climate change and land use change, energy security or food security. UW–Madison Assistant Professor of Geography and Environmental Studies and WBI faculty member Holly GIbbs researches the impacts— whether beneficial or harmful—of expanding croplands and a growing global bioenergy industry. “There’s never an easy answer,” Gibbs says. “But, I think it’s critical that we have a more forwardthinking science approach when we consider current and next generation biofuels because we need to understand the possible negative implications.” In 2008, Gibbs collaborated on a study published in Environmental Research Letters with researchers from UW–Madison, Arizona State University and McGill University in Canada. The study, titled “Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology,” found that net carbon emissions would exist for decades to centuries if biofuel production were expanded into tropical forests. However, if the expansion took place on degraded and previously cultivated land it would provide almost immediate carbon savings.

land reserve and how we can expand production without clearing forests,” Gibbs said. “We are looking at available lands from the ground up instead of from the top down to better inform policy and understand how the land is actually being used.” Gibbs wants to look more to the United States and its potential for additional croplands and homegrown bioenergy to reduce global reactions that might lead to tropical deforestation. She believes we have to understand the implications of current policy and focus on policy with regional, place-based emphasis. “I think the biggest challenge for bioenergy is balancing climate change, conservation and food security goals with energy needs and the impact of land change,” says Gibbs. Advanced biofuels technology could dramatically improve processing pathways and production efficiency, but it is important to understand how those decisions affect the world outside of the bioenergy industry. “People live on and own these lands. They use them for subsistence cropping to feed their families,” she says. “Often times it’s the world’s poorest people living on the most degraded lands. If we convert those lands to use for bioenergy crops, where will those families go? They will go to the forests and then we are back at square one. But, we can avoid this if we start looking at what our options are locally. This is where the most benefit can come from biofuels.”

Gibbs’ research maps tropical deforestation and investigates the patterns, consequences and drivers of agricultural land expansion. Recently she has turned her efforts toward understanding global land conversion, and mapping current and potential conversion pathways.

Gibbs is working with a graduate student to evaluate the current size and geographic distribution of underutilized and uncultivated land that could be considered for additional croplands based here in Wisconsin and the Midwest.

“My current research is looking at the global

The approach combines detailed land cover

FY 2011 Annual Report | 16


maps, ground-based census data and stakeholder interviews to dramatically improve our understanding of domestic land reserves. They will consider idle croplands, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land, degraded grasslands and other, non-forested areas where annual croplands could expand.

Life-cycle and technoeconomic analysis of bioenergy If you plant second-generation biofuels crops on marginal lands will it benefit the surrounding ecosystem? When you create a policy to encourage biofuels production, what effect will the increased production have on local, regional and global systems? Does one feedstock offer universal benefit or do bioenergy feedstocks each provide unique benefits that must be considered when planting? UW–Madison Professor of Biological Systems Engineering and WBI faculty member Rob Anex has chosen to focus on these questions. His research is a series of problems, answers and the effects of proposed solutions. He concentrates on a systems approach to the cause and effect of bioenergy production throughout the supply chain—a complete life-cycle analysis. “Imagine squeezing a balloon,” Anex explains. “If you squeeze in one place it will bulge somewhere else. Bioenergy systems are just like this.” To understand the complexities of a technoeconomic analysis, one that focuses on the efficiencies of technological design as well as commercial viability, Anex’s research group combines methods from a wide breadth of disciplines including engineering, industrial ecology, operations research and economics. Anex’s research aims to include all the pieces for a complete system analysis, from where the

17 17 || Wisconsin Wisconsin Bioenergy Bioenergy Initiative Initiative

plants are grown to how they are converted into biorenewable products, and ultimately, where and how the product is used. “We are developing the fundamental knowledge and technology, and the academic and industrial partnerships needed to transform a petroleumbased industry toward renewables,” Anex says. The research group has collaborated with several organizations that seek to gather the most comprehensive knowledge base for the greatest level of understanding. As part of the National Science Foundation’s Engineering Center for Biorenewable Chemicals, Anex’s group is working on two USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative projects–the Biomass Regional Partnership and a Biomass Research and Development Initiative project. This collaboration gives Anex’s research access to a wide area of influence in conjunction with his work for the WBI. “We are developing methods to help steer development and policy toward more economically and environmentally efficient trajectories,” Anex says. “If you picture the debate that developed around the relative merits of paper versus plastic grocery bags,” Anex says. “We are trying to provide the information to make those sorts of decisions about biofuels. We want to help the consumer choose which products they wish to purchase.”

Understanding relationships between agriculture and energy The study of bioenergy economics is a dynamic one, often full of debate and political intrigue. However, energy economists like UW-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Assistant Professor and WBI faculty member Sheldon Du,


find that their research can help politicians and citizens make informed decisions when it comes to the future of bioenergy in the United States. In May 2009, Du published a study with Dermot J. Hayes, professor of economics and finance at Iowa State University, to determine the impact of ethanol production on U.S. gasoline markets. “That paper was published in Energy Policy,” he recalls. “We analyzed the impact of ethanol production on gasoline prices nationally and regionally.” Current U.S. federal mandates have allowed ethanol to be blended into gasoline at ten percent. Du says that the ethanol serves as a substitute for petroleum when it comes to making these blended fuels. Therefore, ethanol has the effect of increasing the accessible supply of fuels in the U.S. and lowering the cost to consumers. Du found that in 2008 ethanol production was lowering gas prices by 25 cents per gallon. But, with continuing volatility in the world’s oil markets and rising overall gasoline prices, Du decided to update this study in 2011. He found that in 2010 the effect of ethanol blending on reducing gasoline prices had risen to 89 cents per gallon. Du attributed this to substantial increases in ethanol production and blending, and higher crude oil prices. In the Midwest, where ethanol is used with greatest frequency, the price reduction was $1.37 per gallon. The report also investigated what would happen to U.S. gasoline prices if ethanol production came to an immediate halt.

Du’s work goes further than focusing on ethanol production and its effects. He also tries to understand the relationships between energy and agriculture and investigates the effects of environmental policy on the production of secondgeneration biofuels. “Before ethanol, agriculture was really an energyintensive industry,” Du says. “Agriculture was only using fuels and electricity to create production. Now, their production is creating energy. It’s strengthening the relationship between the two.” He believes that federal policy is important to the future production of second-generation biofuels. In order to gain the environmental benefits of second-generation biofuels we have to encourage more research and production. Federal policy accomplishes this by offsetting some of the costs, which are much higher relative to ethanol and gasoline. “We need strong policy support from the federal and state levels,” Du says. “But, we also need education. If we can educate farmers and the producers of feedstocks about the advantages of second-generation crops, we might have more bioenergy adopters.” Moving forward Du says it is important to note that there is not one type of policy that is effective for encouraging production of all biofuels. “For example, up until very recently there were no provisions in our bioenergy policy that covered algae as a biofuel crop,” Du says. “What we really need are many strong policies that support a wide range of bioenergy feedstock productions.”

“While this cannot be calculated with absolute certainty, we found that under a very wide range of parameters gasoline prices would likely increase in historic proportions,” Du says. “Ranging from 41 to 92 percent.”

FY 2011 Annual Report | 18


outside the lab: bio

encouraging Biogas and sustain

Policy research continues to be a strong part of the WBI’s agenda, and in the past year these efforts have been focused around the findings of “The Biogas Opportunity in Wisconsin: 2011 Strategic Plan.” The report was a unique collaboration between the WBI, UW–Madison and private stakeholders.

local and global perspectives. CHANGE-IGERT—a group formed from the Certificate on Humans and the Global Environment program and an Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship grant—is a National Science Foundation–funded research cohort aimed at preparing graduate students to become professionals.

In 2010 the WBI worked with the Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE) and students from the CHANGE-IGERT cohort to work on a project that analyzed anaerobic digester technology from both

Gary Radloff, WBI Midwest energy policy analysis director, traveled to Germany with students from the cohort to research the country’s extensive biogas-to-energy distribution systems and determine how to apply their research to

19 | Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative


oenergy solutions

ainable harvesting in wisconsin

©iStockphoto.com

Wisconsin’s emerging bioenergy economy. The group’s research ranged from the technical analysis of anaerobic digestion systems to interviews with farmers and evaluation of policy factors that influence biogas production and development. Throughout the past year, the project resulted in numerous published reports, dozens of presentations from Washington, D.C., to Wausau, Wis., and an emerging business opportunity in Africa. The German Biogas Association estimates that

Germany now has 6,000 biogas plants, with more than 4,000 of those on-farm. Comparatively, the United States has 151 on-farm anaerobic digesters. The Environmental Protection Agency’s AgSTAR® program predicted that the United States has the capacity for at least 8,000 on-farm anaerobic digesters. Radloff’s research sought how to stimulate this growth in the United States with an emphasis on Wisconsin.

Download “The Biogas Opportunity in Wisconsin: 2011 Strategic Plan,” here: go.wisc.edu/4f8zko

FY 2011 Annual Report | 20


Using global insights to create local benefits While Wisconsin currently leads the nation with 31 on-farm anaerobic digesters, both the WBI and student–led the reports indicate that Wisconsin’s biogas economy remains relatively untapped. The group found tremendous potential in economic and environmental benefits for Wisconsin farmers and food processors. The state could harness its potential by using anaerobic digesters to convert dairy cow manure or agricultural waste into renewable energy for electricity or heat, clean waste to pipeline-quality renewable natural gas, or process it as compressed natural gas for vehicle fuel. The WBI’s strategic plan suggests that if the 23 million tons of manure generated by Wisconsin’s dairy farms were converted to natural gas, it would offset 4.4 percent of the state’s energy needs—a $185 million opportunity. Locally, anaerobic digestion could help food processors and livestock producers deal with waste management burdens. The report estimates that reduced odor emissions would increase private property values in rural areas by $100 million. Food processors could save up to $500,000 in sewer costs each year. The biogas systems help clean local and global environments by reducing agricultural runoff, which results in cleaner public drinking, recreational and irrigation waters. The anaerobic digesters also reduce greenhouse gas production by decreasing methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure and offsetting carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Even though the reports found extensive promise

21 21 || Wisconsin Wisconsin Bioenergy Bioenergy Initiative Initiative

Lessons from Germany: Farmers in Germany generate 60 to 80 percent of their income from energy sales. Germany employs 300,000 people in its renewable energy sector. Germany’s 15 years of biogas-to-energy sector growth can demonstrate useful models for Wisconsin, including: biogas plant co-ownership, innovative partnerships with utilities and partnering with universities. Germany has innovative system designs for large and small-scale biogas operations. Policy is important. for biogas-to-energy, concerns of economic viability and lack of policy to encourage adoption have stalled potential growth.

Making Wisconsin a biogas leader Radloff continues to lead a core working group comprised of environmental groups, farm organizations, energy sector representatives and private industry members to plan education strategy, outreach efforts and policy implementation. In 2012, the group plans to include legislative briefings and meetings with the Public Service Commission and utility regulatory staff. They will continue developing relationships with federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and United States Department of Agriculture, as well as the Wisconsin State Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Department of Natural Resources and the State Energy Office to further the realization of Wisconsin’s biogas opportunity.


The WBI continued its educational and research collaboration with the Nelson Institute and SAGE in fall 2011 by working with two new CHANGEIGERT student cohorts. One group will be studying water quality issues associated with anaerobic digester use and biogas renewable energy. The second group will be writing a case study of the Dane County community digester project. These new research projects along with ongoing biogas outreach efforts, will build on the growing body of knowledge supporting Wisconsin’s efforts to remain a national leader in anaerobic digester technologies.

Sustainable Harvesting Guidelines A team of researchers, policymakers and industry experts has published the Wisconsin Sustainable Planting and Harvest Guidelines for Nonforest Biomass to serve as the foundation for Wisconsin’s bioenergy market. A collaboration of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, UW-Madison and the Bioenergy Council, the guidelines will ensure that Wisconsin’s agricultural and natural resources are both protected and enhanced while aiding in the development of the bioenergy industry. While other technical guidelines for biomass crop production exist, the new guidelines are the first in the nation to address multiple crop types and scales in one place, and at the state level. UWMadison experts in agronomy, soil science, and wildlife ecology contributed their expertise to help ensure that the harvesting and cropping practices are sustainable and promote environmental benefits. “Our primary goal was to produce a set of straightforward, science-based guidelines applicable to a variety of biomass types, while taking into consideration the complexities of decision-making faced by producers, land owners

and land managers,” says Carol Williams, research scientist in the agronomy department at UWMadison. “Not only were we interested in providing guidance to decision-making at the farm or field level, we also wanted to emphasize the potential benefits and impacts of biomass production at the level of landscapes. For people interested in growing and harvesting biomass, the guidelines offer valuable information in deciding what crops and management practices work best for them and their sustainability goals.” Annually, the state spends an estimated $16-18 billion for energy to run businesses, power and heat homes, and fuel vehicles. Using biomass for energy in Wisconsin could keep some of that investment in the state, provide new income streams for farmers, and keep valuable agricultural lands and farmers in farming. Increased bioenergy production will require building rural infrastructure and creating new businesses to support the growth, harvest, collection and transport of biomass and biofuels. “As our continued work on developing bioeconomy in Wisconsin demonstrates, biomass-to-energy projects can represent economic opportunities for the entire state, “ says Radloff. “Implementing these recommendations and establishing more bioenergy projects could lead to greater rural wealth accumulation and new job creation.” In early 2012, the stakeholder group will meet again to form action plans around specific recommendations in the report. The Wisconsin Bioenergy Council will continue the collaborative effort to continuously update the document as scientific data around biomass production becomes available.

Download the Sustainable Harvesting Guidlines, here: go.wisc.edu/jrrlot

FY 2011 Annual Report | 22


facts & figures fiscal year 2011 expenditures

University of Wisconsin Energy Institute $182,669

Program Development $126,874

Outreach & Education $117,372

WBI Operating Expenses $304,450

Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center $523,051

Faculty & Research $2,316,059

23 | Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative


fiscal year 2012 CuRRENT budget ALLOCATIONS

University of Wisconsin Energy Institute $250,000

Program Development $164,500

Outreach & Education $75,000

WBI Operating Expenses $453,840

Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center $100,000

Faculty & Research $2,113,563

FY 2011 Annual Report | 24


WBI Faculty Publications Rob Anex A. Shah, J.M. Darr, D. Medic, R.P. Anex, et al. “Technoeconomic analysis of a production-scale torrefaction system for cellulosic biomass upgrading.” Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 6 (2011): 45–57.

Xiaodong (Sheldon) Du X. Du, C.L. Yu, and D. Hayes. “Speculation and volatility spillover in the crude oil and agricultural commodity markets: A Bayesian analysis.” Energy Economics 33 (2011): 497-503. J. Dumortier, D. Hayes, M. Carriquiry, F. Dong, X. Du, et al. “Sensitivity of Carbon Emission Estimates from Indirect Land-Use Change.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33 (2011): 428-448. M. Carriquiry, X. Du, and G. Timilsina. “Second generation biofuels: Economics and policies.” Energy Policy 39 (2011): 4222-4234.

Holly K. Gibbs W.R. Turner, K. Brandon, T.M. Brooks, C. Gascon, H.K. Gibbs, et al. “Global Biodiversity Conservation and the Alleviation of Poverty.” BioScience 62 (2011): 85-92. L.P. Koh, H.K. Gibbs, P.V. Potapov, and M.C. Hansen. “REDDcalculator.com: a web-based decision-support tool for implementing Indonesia’s forest moratorium.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution (2011).

Chris Hittinger D. Libkind, C.T. Hittinger, E. Valerio, et al. “Microbe domestication and the identification of the wild genetic stock of lager-brewing yeast.” PNAS 108 (2011): 1453914544.

Chris Kucharik D.P.M. Zaks, N. Winchester, C.J. Kucharik, et al. “Contribution of Anaerobic Digesters to Emissions Mitigation and Electricity Generation Under U.S. Climate Policy.” Environmental Science and Technology 45 (2011): 6735-6742.

Troy Runge C. Zhang and T. Runge. “Fractionating Pentosans and Hexosans in Hybrid Poplar.” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 51 (2011): 133-139.

25 25 || Wisconsin Wisconsin Bioenergy Bioenergy Initiative Initiative

John Ralph D.J. Yelle, D. Wei, J. Ralph, and K.E. Hammel. “Multidimensional NMR analysis reveals truncated lignin structures in wood decayed by the brown rot basidiomycete Postia placenta.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 13 (2011): 1091-1100. D.J. Yelle, J. Ralph, and C.R. Frihart. “Delineating pMDImodel reactions with loblolly pine via solution-state NMR spectroscopy. Part 2. Non-catalyzed reactions with the wood cell wall.”Holzforschung 65 (2011): 145-154 D.J. Yelle, J. Ralph, and C.R. Frihart. “Delineating pMDI-model reactions with loblolly pine via solutionstate NMR spectroscopy. Part 1. Catalyzed reactions with wood models and wood polymers.” Holzforschung 65 (2011):131-143. Y. Zhu and J. Ralph. “Stereoselective synthesis of 1-O-ß-feruloyl and 1-O-ß-sinapoyl glucopyranoses.” Tetrahedron Letters 52 (2011): 3729-3731. A.V. Wymelenberg, J. Gaskell, M. Mozuch, S.S. BonDurant, G. Sabat, J. Ralph, et al. “Significant alteration of gene expression in wood decay fungi Postia placenta and Phanerochaete chrysosporium by plant species.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77 (2011): 4499-4507. J.K. Weng, T. Akiyama, J. Ralph, B.L. Golden, and C. Chapple. “Independent recruitment of an O-methyltransferase for syringyl lignin biosynthesis in Selaginella moellendorffii.” Plant Cell 23 (2011): 27082724. A. Wagner, Y. Tobimatsu, L. Phillips, H. Flint, J. Ralph, et al. “CCoAOMT suppression modifies lignin composition in Pinus radiata.” The Plant Journal 67 (2011): 119-129. M. Varbanova, K. Porter, F. Lu, J. Ralph, et al. “Molecular and biochemical basis for stress-induced accumulation of free and bound p-coumaraldehyde in Cucumis sativus.” Plant Physiology 157 (2011):1056-1066. Y. Tobimatsu, C.L. Davidson, J.H. Grabber, and J. Ralph. “Fluorescence-tagged monolignols: Synthesis and application to studying in vitro lignification.” Biomacromolecules 12 (2011): 1752-1761. I. Sørensen, F.A. Pettolino, A. Bacic, J. Ralph, et al. “The charophycean green algae provide insights into early origins of plant cell walls.” The Plant Journal 68 (2011): 201-211. J. Rencoret, A. Gutiérrez, L. Nieto, J. Ralph, et al.“Lignin composition and structure in young versus adult Eucalyptus globulus plants.” Plant Physiology 155 (2011): 667-682.


F. Lu and J. Ralph. “Solution-state NMR of lignocellulosic biomass.” Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy 5 (2011): 169-180. J.K. Jensen, H. Kim, R. Orler, J. Ralph, et al. “The DUF579 domain containing proteins IRX15 and IRX15-L affect xylan synthesis in Arabidopsis.” The Plant Journal 66 (2011): 387-400. S.P.S. Chundawat, B.S. Donohoe, L. da Costa Sousa, J. Ralph. et al. “Multi-scale visualization and characterization of lignocellulosic plant cell wall deconstruction during thermochemical pretreatment.” Energy and Environmental Science 4 (2011): 973-984. A. Azarpira, F. Lu and J. Ralph. “Reactions of dehydrodiferulates with ammonia.” Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry 9 (2011): 6779-6787.

Garret Suen J.M. Chaston, G. Suen, S.L. Tucker, et al. “The Entomopathogenic Bacterial Endosymbionts Xenorhabdus and Photorhabdus: Convergent Lifestyles from Divergent Genomes.” PLoS ONE 6 (2011). J. Gadau, M. Helmkampf, S. Nygaard, G. Suen, et al. “The genomic impact of 100 million years of social evolution in seven ant species.” Trends in Genetics 28 (2011): 14-21. G. Suen, D.M. Stevenson, D.C. Bruce, et al. “Complete Genome of the Cellulolytic Ruminal Bacterium Ruminococcus albus 7.” Journal of Bacteriology 193 (2011): 5574-5575. A.S. Adams, M.S. Jordan, G. Suen, et al. “Cellulosedegrading bacteria associated with the invasive woodwasp Sirex noctilio.” ISME Journal 5 (2011): 1323-1331. G. Suen, C. Teiling, L. Li, C. Holt, et al. “The Genome Sequence of the Leaf-Cutter Ant Atta cephalotes Reveals Insights into Its Obligate Symbiotic Lifestyle.” PLoS Genetics 7 (2011). C.R. Smith, C.D. Smith, H. Robertson, G. Suen, et al. “Draft genome of the red harvester any Pogonomyrmex barbatus.” PNAS 108 (2011):5667-5672. C.D. Smith, A. Zimin, C. Holt, G. Suen, et al. “Draft genome of the globally widespread and invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile).” PNAS 108 (2011): 5673-5678. K.M. Giglio, N. Caberoy, G. Suen, D. Kaiser, A.G. Garza. “A cascade of coregulating enhancer binding proteins initiates and propagates a multicellular developmental

program.” PNAS 108 (2011): 431-439. G. Suen, P.J. Weimer, D.M. Stevenson, F.O. Aylward, J. Boyum, et al. “The Complete Genome Sequence of Fibrobacter succinogenes S85 Reveals a Cellulolytic and Metabolic Specialist.” PLoS ONE 6 (2011). K.J. Grubbs, P.H.W. Biedermann, G. Suen, et al. “Genome Sequence of Streptomyces griseus Strain XylebKG-1, an Ambrosia Beetle-Associated with Actinomycete.” Journal of Bacteriology 193 (2011): 2890-2891. D.A. Miller, G. Suen, D. Bruce, A. Copeland, et al. “Complete Genome Sequence of the CelluloseDegrading Bacterium Cellulosilyticum lentocellum.” Journal of Bacteriology 193 (2011): 2357-2358.

Contact Us Industry, Government Contact: Benjamin Miller, Associate Director External Relations, Wisconsin Energy Institute miller1@wisc.edu

Media Inquiries, Speaking Requests: Falicia Hines, WBI Communications Specialist fhines@wbi.wisc.edu

Policy Inquiries: Gary Radloff, WBI Midwest Energy Policy Analysis Director gradloff@wbi.wisc.edu

Credits

Designed, written and published by WBI communications: Eric Anderson and Falicia Hines Photos: Matthew Wisniewski, GLBRC; Falicia Hines, WBI, iStock Photo

Citation Weimer, P.J. “Lessons from the cow: What the ruminant animal can teach us about consolidated bioprocessing of cellulosic biomass.” Bioresource Technology. 100.21 (2009): 5323-31. Print.

FY 2011 Annual Report | 26


www.wbi.wisc.edu | @WI_BIOENERGY | facebook.com/WIBIOENERGY


WBI FY2011 Annual Report